Dismantling shaky foundations of workplace accident claim saving our client over £100,000
-
Claimant discontinued case with no costs pursued.
-
Saved our client £100,000
Background
The Claimant allegedly sustained injuries after stepping on a loose scaffold plank that reportedly struck him in the face. This accident was said to have caused soft tissue injuries to his face, resulting in ongoing hypersensitivity. Additional claims included hearing loss and tinnitus in his left ear, as well as symptoms of PTSD and depressive disorder. However, inconsistencies began to appear in the Claimant’s report when claimed more extensive injuries, including a broken nose, dizziness, and numbness in his hands—injuries that were not substantiated by medical reports or initial records.
Following the incident, the Claimant was reportedly unable to return to work, stating that his ongoing issues prevented employment, and was therefore reliant on long-term sick leave and universal credit. He also received a grant under the COVID-relief scheme for unemployed individuals. The Claimant indicated that he wished to return to work, although he experienced ongoing anxiety as a result of the accident. However, Davies obtained crucial surveillance footage in September 2023, which captured the Claimant working on a roof—activity that suggested physical capabilities beyond his stated limitations.
How We Helped
The team at Davies conducted a thorough investigation to assess the validity of the Claimant’s injuries and claims. We collected surveillance evidence that contradicted his alleged incapacity for work. This footage, which was obtained in September 2023, showed the Claimant actively working on a rooftop, which cast doubt on his claims of being physically unable to work due to the accident-related injuries.
With this critical information in hand, we disclosed the surveillance evidence to the Claimant’s legal representatives. In addition, we began preparing an Application to amend our Defence to introduce this new evidence and to address the fundamental dishonesty inherent in the Claimant’s assertions. Recognising the severity of the findings and the potential consequences, the Claimant’s solicitors reached out to propose discontinuance of the claim.
Outcome
Faced with the irrefutable evidence undermining his assertions, the Claimant offered to discontinue his claim against all defendants on the condition that he would not be pursued for any wasted or additional costs. Given that the Claimant had no substantial assets and was reportedly in debt, pursuing a fundamental dishonesty finding and seeking costs would have been symbolic rather than financially beneficial. In collaboration with the other defendants, we agreed to the terms and accepted the Claimant’s offer to discontinue, and as a result, a Notice of Discontinuance has been filed.
This outcome not only resolved the case efficiently but also upheld the integrity of our client’s position, highlighting the importance of due diligence and rigorous investigation in defending against inflated or exaggerated claims.