AXA Insurance UK Plc v Rossiter

On 17 April 2013 Sir Raymond Jack, sitting as a High Court Judge, gave permission to the Claimants to make an application to commit the Defendant to prison for contempt of court.

The application arises out of a personal injury claim by the Defendant in which the Claimants were the third party insurers of the tortfeasor who injured the Defendant in a road traffic accident which occurred on 3 March 2008. Liability for that accident was admitted by the Claimants on 6 May 2008.

On 24 February 2011 the Defendant issued a claim form in the Truro County Court. In June 2011 the Particulars of Claim and First Schedule of Loss were served. In August 2011 the Claimants made a Part 36 offer of £30,000 plus CRU benefits. On 2 November 2011 judgment was entered in favour of the Defendant. In April 2012 directions were given at a Case Management Conference. In May 2012 the Defendant served an updated Schedule of Loss.

On 14 June 2012 the Claimants disclosed to the Defendant surveillance evidence of filming which took place between 14 November 2011 and 20 January 2012. There were 13 days of filming between those dates. In addition there was surveillance filming on 17 and 18 April 2012. On 20 August 2012 the Defendant accepted the Part 36 offer out of time and on 5 September 2012 the proceedings were formally compromised by a Tomlin Order. The Defendant issued the application for permission to bring the present proceedings on 24 January 2013.

In summary the Claimants allege that the Defendant fraudulently exaggerated her claim for gain. There are in total 48 allegations relating to specific statements and representations contained in the Schedule to the Particulars of Contempt which form part of the Particulars of Claim. That Schedule is annexed as Appendix 1 to this judgment.

In paragraph 17 and 18 of the Particulars of Claim it is stated:

“17.

The specific allegations of Contempt of Court against the Defendant are set out in the Schedule to this Particulars of Contempt. The Schedule is an integral part of these Particulars of Contempt and is not, and is not intended to be, a separate document.”

“18.

Allegations 5, 6, 13, 20, 21, 22, 33, 34, 40, 41, 42 and 44 of the allegations referred to in the Schedule are instances of contempt of court as set out by or within the meaning of Part 32.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. (This is without prejudice to the Claimants further or alternative contention that the conduct complained of in all the allegations set out in the Schedule, or any of it, was contemptuous of the court irrespective of the provisions of Part 32.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.) ”

In support of the Claimants’ application are two affidavits from the Claimants’ Solicitor, David James Cole. These are dated 23 January 2013 and 22 August 2013. They exhibit the statements of case etc, witness statements and experts’ reports in the County Court proceedings. In addition a bundle of documents, extracted from files of paper provided by the Defendant’s Solicitors in the County Court proceedings (Messrs Nalders), is exhibited.

The Defendant denies the Claimants’ allegations. Affidavit and oral evidence has been given by:

It is common ground that for the Claimants to establish each contempt alleged they must prove beyond reasonable doubt in respect of each statement:

The Claimants relied substantially on statements made by the Defendant in the following documents:

The reports from Dr Neal, Mr Smith and Dr Briscoe were served on the Defendant’s behalf in the previous proceedings. The Claimants had instructed Dr Blacker. I did not see his report. It was relied upon by the Claimants only for statements made by the Defendant to Dr Blacker. She accepted making those statements.

The Defendant accepted that she had seen the reports of the medical experts instructed on her behalf prior to their service. Apart from one matter in Mr Smith’s report about her getting rid of a dog/dogs, she could not remember if she had corrected anything or not.

The Defendant also accepted that she had signed her witness statement of 16 January 2012 with the Statement of Truth and she understood that the purpose of the witness statement was to evidence what had been happening and for her to say how the accident had affected her. She knew it was for the assessment of her claim. She accepted that somebody with major injury would get more compensation than somebody with a lesser injury. She said she would not have thought like that, but that was correct. She was more concerned about getting treatment. She also accepted that the purpose of the medical reports and the witness statement was to get money and she knew that they would be sent to the Claimants in order that they could value the claim. She accepted it was very important to tell the truth in a witness statement. Her witness statement had been based on documents she had typed and sent to her former solicitors; so it was not a case of words having been put in her mouth. She had understood the importance of telling the whole truth in legal proceedings. She knew that without lawyers telling her.

The Defendant accepted it was a fair summary of the medical reports and of her statement that she was presenting as a lady with permanent severe continuous disability. Her case was that the picture she had presented was correct, save that there was variability in the level of her symptoms. Ms Rossiter said it was her fault that she did not make it clear that sometimes things were better and sometimes worse. She said that she should have told the Doctors and, if she had applied her mind to it, she would have said that on average she was able to do things five or six days a week but that they would exhaust her. She clarified this by saying it was not five or six days every week but five or six days in a monthly cycle. When she could do things she would push herself, since she had been advised by the doctor to do this.

As regards Mr Smith’s report, she said that he had asked him what she could do at that time and he did not question her as to whether there were variables. She said that when Dr Briscoe came to see her she had had a lot of problems and had been in bed just before that for some five weeks. She wasn’t very clear on anything. She had vomited for two weeks, stopped and then started again. I shall return later to the statements she made to Doctor Blacker and her comments upon them.

The Defendant said that the medical reports, her witness statement and Updated Schedule of Loss summarised her true state of health for a great deal of the time. She had continual pain of the same intensity in her back, neck and head. Pain in her elbows, wrist and knees was always present but varied in intensity. She nearly always had pain in her spleen if she was outside or had any anxiety. In her pelvic area she always had some pain, but it was always much worse after periods and the worsening could persist for two to three weeks. She always had headaches in the back of her head and these were always quite heavy pain. In other parts of her head sometimes she had pain and sometimes she did not.

Mr Smith described injuries and symptoms to the neck and head, pain in the elbows, wrists and fingers, pain in the shoulders. She said she could not lift her shoulders up and had problems with her back from the central low back radiating to above and below the iliac crest. She said that she struggled to balance and kept falling over. He noted a letter from her physiotherapist in July 2008 which stated that since the accident she had been suffering from pain in the head, both wrists, both forearms and extreme sensitivity of the entire spine as well as stress incontinence. When examined she was in a continual state of fear and her soft tissues were tender to touch. It was thought by the physiotherapist that psychological treatment rather than physiotherapy would be of more benefit.

The following are some short extracts from Mr Smith’s report:

“Head and Neck

….

12.2.3

…it is therefore my opinion that some ongoing head and neck pain is a result of the accident.

12.2.4

My examination of Ms Rossiter demonstrated quite abnormal reactions to light, touch and pain sensitisation. I note that a major depressive illness has been diagnosed and, whilst not an expert in psychological medicine, I am aware that such an illness will affect both the recovery of an individual and also the perceived level of symptoms. It is probable that this combined with the fear shown of her symptoms is the main reason why Ms Rossiter still had intrusive neck and head pain…I would expect improvement to occur once the psychological aspects of her problems have been addressed.

Shoulders and Arms

…my examination of the shoulders and arms did not demonstrate any specific identifiable injuries…it is possible that they are radiating pain from the neck but the delayed presentation leads me to conclude that this explanation is unlikely.

Back

…

12.2.7

…As with her neck my examination demonstrated some inconsistent findings and abnormal pain generation. In the absence of the psychological problems experienced by Ms Rossiter, it is more likely than not that she would have been able to treat her low back injury and that any symptoms would have been resolved by now…

12.13

Restrictions on recreational, social or sporting activities

12.13.1

Mrs Rossiter reports that she has had no social life since the accident and has stopped all sports….

Dr Neal’s Report

Dr Briscoe’s Report

As I have mentioned, this was signed on 16 January 2012 in the circumstances described above. I shall cite certain important extracts:

“On 25 March 2011 Dr Liz Perry SPR, Rheumatology wrote to my GP –

This lady has been struggling for the past three years since her car accident and has been treated for post traumatic stress and anxiety since then. Over the last year or so she has become increasingly agoraphobic, increasing anxious. She sleeps in bed for around three weeks of each month and struggles to leave the house…

Current Situation

I now rarely leave the house and very often rarely leave the bed. I cannot lift my arms above shoulder height without extreme pain, I have to have help doing most things. My back/spinal pain and pain through my left cervical region are constant as is the pain in my neck and through my shoulders. My wrists, especially my left wrist, are badly affected so much so that I use a Wacom tablet to write and to draw instead of a keyboard and mouse. The grip on my left hand is minimal…

25.

Paralysis and lack of movement is a major problem because if I wake at night which happens constantly because of pain or incontinence, my body is nearly always frozen which means my son will have to lift me or move me or dress me or change bedding. Sleep depravation is a form of torture and feels exactly that. On average I sleep only three hours a night, which means my son, as my full time carer, has the same amount of sleep. Incontinence and irritable bowel have been constant and have left me without any dignity at all. I cannot eat hot food and have to eat only cold salads and pulses. I have long periods of vomiting as soon as I eat.

26.

Staying in bed has become a way of life …

29.

I understand fibromyalgia is a consequence of the trauma of the accident. It developed almost immediately. I am prescribed Tramadol and depressants and Melocloramide and Gabapentine. This in itself is debilitating …Musculoskeletal Dysfunction can only be described in context with myself as having all of a sudden someone else’s bones that don’t work or indeed don’t fit because the joints just don’t function as they should, and the onset was so quick.

30.

Exhaustion is extreme and has extreme consequences; for example just getting up leaves me so exhausted, it feels just like that. Effort tires me so much that I have to rest again. When I do wake there is a “brain fog” which is quite literally as described so much so that it feels like my brain cannot tell my body to work.

31.

The muscles throughout my body have become very weak indeed and the soft tissue damage that was diagnosed by the physiotherapist at the outset has not improved at all. Simple movement without any weight like bending my arms or even moving my wrists or fingers hurts a great deal.

32.

My weight has obviously increased because I cannot exercise effectively…

33.

Managing extreme pain is a part of my daily life. Because I have discussed suicide as a consequence of having to live in so much pain with my doctor and because of how dangerous these drugs are my doctor insists that my son be in charge of all my medication. At this point I must make it quite clear that all of the drugs I am taking result from the RTA and are not taken for any other purpose or medical reason. …”

In short the Defendant’s case is that the symptoms described and picture presented in the above medical reports and in her witness statement was accurate, save that there were periods when she did not suffer quite as much and where the restriction on her lifestyle was not quite as great. She considers that she suffers from fibromyalgia, but has never had this formally diagnosed. It was mentioned to her by a Spanish doctor in 2008. She said that since Mr Smith’s report in 2010 her suffering has changed because mentally she has gone to pieces and that has affected everything else.

The Defendant denied any dishonesty, whilst accepting that she should have pointed out the variability in her symptoms. Other than that she did not accept that there was anything in the documents which could have misled the Claimants. She stood by the picture generally presented which she accepted was one of “unremitting crippling disability”, save that this was the picture for a lot of the time rather than 100% of the time.

All of the surveillance evidence was viewed in open court with the Defendant stopping the DVD from time to time by raising her hand so as to make a comment. The Claimants’ case is that the surveillance evidence is critical and it is that which demolishes the claim and shows a starkly different picture from the complaints in the medical reports. They say it shows that the Defendant does housework, shops in supermarkets, does school runs, walks her dogs, is out for lengthy periods, probably with friends. They also say that there is no sign whatever of any disability on the videos. As to the Defendant’s case that she has some relatively good days where she can do somewhat more the Claimants’ submissions is:

Before I go on to consider the days where there is actual coverage, I wish to mention the fact that there was surveillance on 17 April 2012 and 18 April 2012. There is no evidence that the Defendant left the house on either of those two days. The Claimants suggest that she was perhaps “lying low” during this period. The suggestion is based on Mr Syer’s letter of 16 March 2012 and the meeting between him and the Defendant on 29 March 2012. In the letter Mr Syer wrote:

“The matters that came out in the meeting with Nicki (Greenup) really centred around recent occasions when she met you for coffee out of the house.

My understanding of your recent instructions to me were that you were effectively housebound and unable to get out, reliant upon others for almost in constant care.

Certainly that was on the basis that I arranged for Dr Briscoe the psychiatrist to visit you and it is the reason why the Defendants have had to go to the time, trouble and expense of sourcing Dr Blacker who is travelling from Exeter to visit you at home.

I am certainly not suggesting that you should not go out of the house or that this litigation is something that should prevent you from doing so but you have to be vary careful in that way that you explain your circumstances to people.

I am sure you will say that you get days when you are able to function to a limited degree and certainly your hospital and GP records show that you are able to make appointments for the greater part of the time.

I think the meeting with Dr Blacker will be an ideal opportunity for you to “square this away” you need to explain to Dr Blacker how you are affected by the current illness you are suffering from and explain to him that there are days that you are able to go out and put those occasions into context, and you might want to refer to being able to go out for short spaces of time to meet friends for coffee, giving him details of when you have done so over the last two months or so; I understand from Nicki that she had met you at the Falmouth Beach Café and perhaps one other place in recent weeks.

It is important that you include this in the information you provide to Dr Blacker as you will then be seen to have disclosed this information voluntarily rather than given an emphasis on your evidence that would leave Dr Blacker to think that you were unable to leave the house. …”

There was no surveillance in March or April until 17 April 2012. On 23 March 2012 the Defendant was seen by Dr Blacker. I shall come to this later but the Claimants suggest that there was some tailoring by the Defendant of her complaints to Dr Blacker to take account of the letter of 16 March 2012. Certainly she conceded to Dr Blacker “she always need accompanying when she goes outside, although there are occasions when she can walk a few yards into town to a local shop or to meet a friend.”

The GP notes of 18 April 2012 evidence a telephone consultation where “the Defendant’s son reluctantly passed me onto his mum – concerned she would be too weak to talk. Continuation of ongoing problems – had 4d sickness. Seems to have reached some sort of crisis. Cites main problems nausea, limiting intake of fluids – usually manages soup/toast. Feeling weak – has not been out of bed? two days…. Usually settles within 4 – 5d …”

Unless the Defendant did have some real and strong suspicion of video surveillance at this stage, that documentary evidence assists her in the general case she has put forward in defence to the present claim. It supports her case that there were times when she was unfit to leave the house.

The second point that needs to be made before detailed consideration of the surveillance, is that the Defendant’s medical records show that since the accident she has regularly been prescribed a cocktail of medication including pain killers, anti-depressants and anti-emetics. The Claimants floated the suggestion with the Defendant that perhaps she has not taken these tablets and was “flushing them down the toilet”. She denied this. I accept her denial.

The third preliminary point is that near the beginning of the Defendant’s cross-examination it was put to her that she very regularly had attended her general practitioner from the date of the accident. The suggestion was some two to three times a month. She said she thought the average was much lower than that. It was then pointed out that the surveillance material was served in June 2012 and from the date acceptance of the Part 36 offer in August 2012 until January 2013 [when the Defendant was served with notice of the Claimants’ application to bring the present proceedings] she had been to the doctor only once for a flu jab. After receiving the notice of application she had recommenced regular attendance. The records support this pattern. However it is interesting to compare the records at the time of the surveillance. There were attendances on 15 November 2011 (by telephone), 16 November 2011 and 18 November 2011 (telephone). The next entry of an attendance by telephone or in person at the general practitioner was 18 April 2012, a gap of five months. Thereafter there are a number of attendances in April and May (23 April, 4 May, 24 May, 25 May). Thus, apart from the two video recordings on 14 November and 16 November 2011, there are no relevant entries in the GP’s records which cover the recordings in December/January 2012. The entries on 15 November and 16 November are in relation to abdominal pain predominantly. The only November entry reporting very severe problems in terms of other pains post dates the November surveillance. It is a telephone entry of 18 November 2011. It is right to say (paragraph 14 of the judgment above) that the Defendant said that when Dr. Briscoe came to see her she had a lot of problems and had been in bed just before that for some five weeks. Dr Briscoe examined at the end of November. Those five weeks would cover the first two days of the surveillance. Nevertheless the entry of 18 November 2011, though it refers to “eight weeks left sided abdo sharp intermittent pain” also says “fibromyalgia symptoms or worse.”

I will not go through the surveillance evidence in enormous detail. It does show the following:

The surveillance on 14 and 16 November 2011 was from live operatives who followed the Defendant. Surveillance on the other dates was apparently by means of a fixed camera outside her home. On some days there is a substantial sighting eg. 14 November 2011, 2 January 2012, 16 January 2012. On other days the Defendant is shown hardly to emerge: on 31 December 2011 she is seen once to walk up the steps; on 1 January 2012 she is seen to walk up the steps carrying bin bags; 13 January 2012 she is seen walking to her home carrying a bag in her left hand.

It is conceded that if one compares the DVD evidence with what was said in the Defendant’s witness statement of 16 January 2012 (a surveillance date) and to the Defendant’s medical experts, then the DVDs show that the Defendant was capable of doing things which were not set out (and effectively ruled out) in any of these documents. This is clear from a comparison of my summary of the DVD evidence and of her witness statement and medical reports earlier in this judgment. Most importantly one has to compare, however, the 48 allegations contained in Appendix 1 to this judgment. It is also important to emphasise that the Claimants’ case is anchored on the surveillance, which is why paragraph 12 of the Particulars of Claim predicates all allegations with the words “by November 2011 at the latest and probably much earlier”. The Claimants allege that, by reason of the fact that the Defendant (they say) was dishonest, the Court should find that she was dishonest probably much earlier than the date of the DVD evidence. Further the Claimants ask the Court to infer that the Defendant was generally able to do everything in the 48 allegations. They ask the Court to reject the explanation of good days and bad days as a dishonest reaction by the Defendant tailoring her evidence to the indisputable minimum which the DVDs show.

For reasons which I shall give below I do not find the Defendant to have been dishonest. Her statements to (at least) Dr Briscoe and her witness statement of 16 January 2012 were false in that they did not deal with what she could do (as shown on the surveillance evidence) on good days. It is very difficult for the Court to make a detailed assessment as to the true extent of her disability, but I am not prepared to find in these proceedings that the Claimants have satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that she could do more than is shown on the surveillance evidence and as explained by Ms Rossiter and her witnesses. I do not find that she generally made false statements to Dr Blacker (I shall deal with this later); nor do I find that she made false statements in her Schedule of Loss dated 29 May 2012.

It is conceded that they would have done so in that the administration of justice would have been interfered with, absence the surveillance evidence, by reason of an increased award of damages or compromise of the Defendant’s claim.

I regard the points made in paragraphs 24 – 26 of this judgment as important background evidence. I accept that there were times when the Defendant was unfit to leave the house and that she was taking regular medication. I appreciate that she had taken anti-depressants prior to the accident, but she was on increased regular medication from the accident and throughout thereafter.

It is correct that the Defendant has never had a proper diagnosis which supports her symptomatology. This is of some importance, but falls a long way short of proving that she is dishonest.

The pattern of the Defendant’s symptomatology, as she stated to the Court, was that she might have vomiting for perhaps two to three weeks of which four to five days would be bad. She would not be able to get out of the house during such a period. However perhaps five or six days every month she would be fit enough to get out and do what she was seen doing on the DVDs. It is of course possible that she was tailoring her evidence to the DVDs, but I am certainly not prepared to find that I am sure that she did so tailor her evidence. Nor am I prepared to find that she was capable of doing much (if anything) more than the DVDs overtly show. This is not just on the basis of her evidence, but on the basis of other evidence from her son Jackson Rossiter and her friends Ann Richards and Sarah Cochran. It is important in my judgment to note that the Defendant is never shown doing anything particularly energetic or strenuous. She always appears to walk relatively slowly and sometimes with difficulty (see for example 13 January 2012). The bag she is often seen carrying is a brown leather bag, described by the Claimants as a rucksack, in which she says she carries incontinence pads and medication, along with some cosmetics.

The line between exaggeration and dishonesty has been explored in a number of cases. They were helpfully summarised by Mr Justice Coulson in Walton v Kirk [2009] EWHC 703 (QB). The Learned Judge said this:

“11…There have been a number of cases in which a discrepancy between a claimed condition, and that which is capable of being seen on a secret surveillance video, has not, of itself, been regarded as a contempt of court. Thus, by way of example, in Rogers v Little Haven Day Nursery Ltd (30 July 1999, unreported), a decision of Bell J, the Claimant had said that her injury sustained at work were such that her right wrist was completely useless. The video showed the Claimant using her right hand to carry boxes, hold papers, pens, mugs and a cigarette. The judge found that the video showed that she could use her right hand that she did so without any sign of pain. Having considered all of the evidence, Bell J concluded that the Claimant had exaggerated her condition but that:

“…the exaggeration which I have described falls within the bounds of familiar and understandable attempts to make sure that doctors and lawyers do not underestimate a genuine condition, rather than indicating an outright attempt to mislead in order to increase the value of her claim beyond its true worth.”

In Ford v GKR Construction (22 October 1999, unreported) the principal matter with which the Court of Appeal was concerned was related to the judge’s order that the Defendant should pay the Claimant’s costs. One matter dealt with in the judgment of Judge LJ (as he then was) concerned the secret videos of the Claimant which suggested that she was exaggerating her symptoms. The judge at first instance had said:

“I do not think that the Plaintiff was deliberately lying. I think there is a failure on her part to recognise that there are time when she can do much more than she does, and in fact to recognise that on occasions she does do more for herself. I think there is force in the submission that once the Plaintiff was regarded as limited in her capabilities, it was easy for her to regard that as the norm, where as in fact it may reflect the situation when she is at her worst. It is the nature of the illness that it fluctuates”

It appears from the transcript that the Court of Appeal took the same view, and no criticism was made of this aspect of the Claimant’s evidence.

13.

Accordingly, it seems to me that discrepancies between a statement verified by a statement of truth, on the one hand, and video evidence on the other, will not automatically give rise to a contempt of court. Ultimately it is a matter of fact and degree. Some exaggeration may be natural, even understandable, for the reasons set out by Bell J in Rogers. On the other hand, gross exaggeration and dishonesty will not be tolerated. As Cox J said in her judgment giving permission to bring the present case, “it is in the public interest that personal injury claims pursue honest claims before the courts and do not significantly exaggerate those claims for financial gain.”

In my judgment the evidence of the Defendant and that of her witnesses at the very least raises considerable doubt as to whether the Defendant was deliberately lying. The Claimants have fallen far short of proving dishonesty to the requisite standard of proof. The words of the trial judge in the case of Ford v GKR Construction may well be a very good reflection of precisely what the situation was for Ms Rossiter.

After her solicitors’ letter of 16 March 2012 the Defendant saw the Claimants’ psychiatrist on 23 March 2012. The Claimants relied as evidence of dishonesty on a number of statements which the Defendant admitted making to Dr Blacker. I have scheduled those statements and my comments upon them in appendix 2 to this judgment. It will be clear from that that I do not regard most of the statements as inaccurate. Those few that are, were not dishonest for the reasons I have just given. Nor do I accept the Claimants’ submission that the Defendant was tailoring her complaints to Dr Blacker because of the contents of the Solicitors’ letter of 16 March 2012.

It will be seen from Appendix 2 that in Dr Blacker’s report what the Defendant said to him was more qualified, because it did make reference to the good and bad days. In my judgment this was because her solicitor had pointed this matter out to her in the letter of 16 March 2012. However it was not a case of her being dishonest before; rather was it a case that he had highlighted, at least partially, to her that there were times when she could do more than she had admitted to and therefore heard the description of the norm, because Mr Syer had questioned it, was now more accurate. I am not persuaded that the Schedule of Loss dated 29 May 2012 (pre disclosure of surveillance evidence) was dishonest. The care claim was as follows:

“Since about March 2009 the Claimant’s care is reflected in the attached Schedule which sets out an average two week cycle: in the first week the recorded time is 70 hours and 20 minutes and in the second week its 35 hours 45 minutes.”

The Claimants point to the fact that on 29 March 2012 the solicitors’ file note says, by contrast, “we discussed her weeks where she is well enough to get up and when she has had weeks where she can stay in bed. These weeks end up being the same for care really as she is not able to really do anything when she is up.” They submit that the discrepancy shows that she was changing her claim between March and May because of Mr Syer’s concerns. An alternative explanation, which certainly cannot be excluded as a realistic possibility, is that she genuinely had the impression she conveyed to Mr Syer on 29 March 2012, but once she had monitored it over a two week period she came up with a more variable pattern showing one week requiring twice as much as another.

I have dealt with most, but not all of the points which the Claimants made. Other points were made about the failure to call her friend Ms Greenup and a file note of Mr Syer on 22 May 2012 taking instructions on the Schedule eg. where it states “shopping all done online – save small bits son would get from local shop.” These do not change my judgment in this case.

I have so far made little reference to the witnesses called by the Defendant. I shall not deal with them in great detail. I also accept that some points of merit were made in cross-examination; nevertheless they were in my judgment honest witnesses who were overwhelmingly accurate in their evidence. I shall deal with them briefly in turn:

For the above reasons, although there are a number of instances of false/inaccurate statements as detailed above, I do not accept that the Claimants have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant made those statements dishonestly and therefore the application fails.

she was confined to bed for three weeks a month (to Dr Neal)

she tended to be fairly inactive at home, often spending days at a time in bed (to Mr Smith)

she was confined to bed (to Dr Briscoe)

she spent most of her time on a sofa (to Dr Briscoe)

she rarely left the house and very often rarely left the bed (in her witness statement)

staying in bed had become a way oflife (in her witness statement)

she was effectively bed- and housebound (in Ms Cochran's witness statement)

she went for weeks at a time when she did not even leave the bed, let alone leave the house, remaining in bed for five weeks at a time (to Dr Blacker)

she had very long periods when she could not get out of bed at all (to Dr Blacker)

on better days she could get out of bed and she would then sit on the sofa all day and read and watch television, however, most of the time she was in bed (to Dr Blacker)

she no longer left the house (to Dr Neal)

she found it difficult to get out and about (to Dr Briscoe)

she rarely left the house and very often rarely left the bed (in her witness statement)

she was effectively bed- and housebound (in Ms Cochran’s witness statement)

she was unable to leave the house (to Dr Blacker)

she went for weeks at a time when she did not even leave the bed, let alone leave the house, remaining in bed for five weeks at a time (to Dr Blacker)

she left the house rarely and, at most once or possibly twice a week (to Dr Blacker)

she always needed accompanying when she went outside (to Dr Blacker)

she had ongoing and severe neck and head pain, arm pain, shoulder pain, back pain and depression with no evidence of improvement (to Mr Smith)

she had a continuing need for painkillers (in first and second Schedule of Loss)

she suffered extreme exhaustion (in her witness statement)

she was afraid to go out most of the time, the times when she did were carefully planned (in her witness statement)

she was in agony all the time (to Dr Blacker)

she felt she would fall to the right side, injuring herself frequently from falling over (to Dr Neal)

she had poor balance, regularly falling over as the result of balance problems (to Mr Smith)

she did not like going out because she felt wobbly, and worried that she might fall (to Dr Briscoe)

her legs felt as if they did not work (to Dr Neal)

her arms were incapable of most tasks (to Mr Smith)

she could not lift her shoulders up (to Mr Smith)

on examination, all her movements were slow and deliberate (to Mr Smith)

on examination, she demonstrated marked restriction of movement (to Mr Smith)

she had difficulty using her fingers and wrists; her elbows and arms had very little strength (to Dr Briscoe)

she could not lift her arms above shoulder height without extreme pain (in her witness statement)

the muscles throughout her body had become very weak indeed, with simple movement without any weight like bending her arm or even moving her wrists or fingers hurting a great deal (in her witness statement)

her walking distance is just a few yards (to Mr Smith)

she could not manage stairs (to Mr Smith)

she needed care from her son (to Mr Smith)

she needed and used a commode (to Mr Smith)

her son had had to defer a university course because she needed his care (to Dr Briscoe)

her son was her full time carer (in her witness statement)

she needed care fo 35 to 70 hours a week (in second Schedule of Loss)

she was almost wholly dependent upon her two sons to provide the care and assistance she required (in her second Schedule of Loss)

she had had to rehome her dogs because she could not walk them (to Mr Smith)

she could not now assist at all with DIY and was physically incapable of carrying out any degree of what she was capable of before (in the first and second Schedules of Loss)

she would very occasionally walk the dogs (to Dr Blacker)

she was not able to do any housework at all, most of it being done by her sons (to Dr Blacker)

she could do very, very little at home (to Dr Blacker)

she no longer had a social life (to Dr Neal)

the statement or representation was false;

the statement or representation, if persisted in, would have interfered with the administration of justice in that it would have caused the Defendant to be awarded more damages than she was entitled to;

at the time she made the statement or representation she had no honest belief in its truth;

at the time she made the statement or representation she knew that it would be likely to interfere with the administration of justice.