In the recent case of Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB), the High Court was tasked with determining whether the claimant, Hazel Boyd, had exaggerated the extent of her injury to such a degree that it amounted to fundamental dishonesty. This case offers insight into how the courts approach exaggeration of injuries and the high threshold required for such behaviour to be deemed "fundamentally dishonest".

 Background

 The Defendant employed the Claimant as a rider and stable hand. On 23 June 2020, she fell from a cantering horse and sustained a dislocation and articular fracture to her right elbow.

The Claimant argued that she had suffered permanent residual symptoms, including an inability to lift heavy objects with her right arm and restricted movement.

The Defendant accepted that the Claimant had suffered a serious injury but argued that she had been fundamentally dishonest in that she had exaggerated the level of her ongoing disability (most notably when she was examined by the medical expert instructed by the Defendant).

 The Law

 Section 57(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 allows the court to dismiss an entire personal injury claim if the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest concerning the primary or a related claim. This includes any genuine elements of the claim that the claimant would have otherwise been entitled to.

The Hearing - Dishonesty

Following evidence and submissions by the parties, Mr Justice Cotter found as a fact that the Claimant had “deliberately exaggerated” her symptoms to the medical experts. In particular, she made the following statements which she knew to be untrue:

a) She could not brush her teeth right-handed.

b) She could not comb her hair.

c) When she eats, she does so left-handed.

d) She was unable to do any significant cooking.

e) She could drive a car, but for short periods only.

f) She was (only) able to do a certain amount of washing up, albeit with difficulty.

g) She was unable to change bed linen.

h) She was unable to do gardening.

i) She walks her dogs but does not hold onto the lead with her right hand.

The judge also found that the Claimant failed to fully disclose the extent to which she had resumed football and rugby training in August 2020.

In addition to her interactions with the medical experts, the judge found that the statement in the Claimant’s witness statement, that she could not throw darts right-handed, was also untrue.

These findings satisfied the judge that the Claimant had been dishonest.

The Hearing – Fundamental Dishonesty

The following question was whether the dishonesty could be properly categorised as “fundamental”.

Mr Justice Cotter acknowledged that the claimant had suffered a “very nasty injury” and was not dishonest from the outset. She had been concerned that her level of disability may have been underestimated, “so she exaggerated elements of it”. It was noted that the Claimant had been candid in her first statement when she explained that she was not coping mentally, contemplating suicide and was worried about her finances. This had driven her to exaggerate.

However, this dishonest exaggeration did not affect special damages and only had a limited effect on the award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity; “it did not develop beyond exaggeration of the extent of her disability on aspects of daily life”.

In Mr Justice Cotter’s view, it was of “central importance” to the claimant that “the core or heart of the claim remained unaffected by the exaggeration”.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, despite “significant hesitation”, the judge concluded that the “dishonest exaggeration was not sufficiently significant to mean that it went to the root or heart of the claim. It was dishonest embellishment to underpin an essentially honest claim.” For this reason, the Defendant, “by a narrow margin”, had failed to satisfy the burden of establishing fundamental dishonesty.

This case illustrates the fine line between dishonest exaggeration and fundamental dishonesty. It serves as a cautionary tale to claimants that while some level of exaggeration may not always lead to a finding of fundamental dishonesty, the margins are narrow, and in some cases, taking this risk may lead to the dismissal of the entire claim, even where genuine injury has been suffered.