Expert Witness Journal Issue 67 June/July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 50
Successful application for summary
judgment in exaggerated claim saving 1 million pounds
by Jennifer Brown, Consultant & Georgia Court, Partner at DAC Beachcroft.
Overview
Days 4 and 5 surveillance:
In the matter of Muhammad Ayaz v Royal Sun Alliance
Insurance Limited 2026, the defendant (D) made a
successful application for summary judgment in
a personal injury claim following disclosure of
surveillance evidence that conclusively demonstrates
that the claimant (C) has been fundamentally
dishonest, saving £1m.
C was seen walking outside his house and
carrying boxes. He was seen driving to his medical
appointment. He exited the car and immediately
entered the wheelchair. After the appointment, he
was helped to transfer into the car. Some distance
away from the consulting rooms, C was seen exiting
the vehicle and walking and shopping.
Facts
When attending the medical appointment, C stated
that he could not get out of his wheelchair and that
he spent all his time in bed. The expert noted there
was evidence of exaggeration or malingering.
The claim arose out of a road tra昀케c accident in
February 2020. In 2022, C, in a wheelchair, saw one
medical expert and stated he was barely able to stand
or walk for a few minutes, relied on family for care
provision, had not worked since the accident, was
unable to dress himself and required assistance with
bathing, washing and personal hygiene. In 2023,
again, using a wheelchair, he saw another expert
and claimed he was unable to stand unaided, was
unable to use both hands and was in constant pain.
C also signed a schedule of loss totalling £661,000
and claimed he had been unable to work since the
accident and required care.
Day 6 surveillance:
C was seen walking around his house without his
wheelchair. He loaded the wheelchair into the car.
He drove to another expert’s appointment and on
arrival, was helped into the wheelchair and after
the appointment was helped into the car. When he
returned home, he was seen walking unaided.
Day 7 surveillance:
C was seen walking around his house, bending and
loading the wheelchair into the car. He drove away
from the house, but was no longer driving when he
arrived at Dr Edwards’ consulting rooms.
C subsequently saw a third expert, Dr Edwards,
again in a wheelchair, stating he was unable to walk
for more than just one or two steps. He required
support in all aspects of activities of daily living.
C’s wife reported that she hadn’t worked since the
accident because she is his full-time carer.
C stated to the medical expert that he could not hold
anything in his right hand and that the use of his left
hand caused pain. He stated that he could not walk
for more than one or two steps, was unable to drive,
and could not stand or bend over.
Evidence
Days 1, 2 and 3 surveillance:
C was seen walking outside his house without his
wheelchair driving a Range Rover to go shopping.
He carried a shopping basket and bent and crouched
whilst putting air into his tyres. He manoeuvred
various cars outside his house and drove to B&Q,
where he was seen carrying a large piece of MDF. C
was seen driving away from his house and returning
on foot.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Application for summary judgment
The surveillance evidence was disclosed, which
prompted C’s solicitors to remove themselves from
the court record. D was given permission to rely
on an amended defence to plead fundamental
dishonesty, the surveillance evidence and expert
evidence commenting on the footage.
48
JUNE 2026
