Fundamental dishonesty and social media: what the reported cases mean for claimant firms

Since 2015, a finding of fundamental dishonesty in any part of a personal injury claim has meant the loss of all of it. The material that decides these cases is, more and more often, the claimant's own online record — and in every reported case it was there before the claim was pleaded. This article sets out what the cases actually decided, what they cost, and what a claimant firm can put on its file to protect itself.

The rule, briefly

Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 requires the court to dismiss a personal injury claim in its entirety where the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the claim or a related claim, unless the claimant would suffer substantial injustice. The genuine part of the claim goes with the dishonest part; the court records what it would have awarded and that sum is set against the costs the claimant must pay.

Two consequences follow for the firm. First, qualified one-way costs shifting is lost under CPR 44.16, so adverse costs become enforceable against the claimant in full. Second, the firm's own work in progress — everything invested under the conditional fee agreement — is written off, along with the success fee and, frequently, the disbursements it funded.

The cases, and what they cost

Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings [2024] EWHC 806 (KB). A genuine and serious brain injury. The claimant's social media activity, together with surveillance, contradicted the disability she had described. The court found fundamental dishonesty and dismissed the claim, forfeiting £596,704 of genuine damages. The judgment is now the leading authority on how narrow the "substantial injustice" exception is.

Shaw v Wilde [2024] EWHC 1660 (KB). A motorcycle-injury claim pleaded at £6.4 million. Surveillance and lifestyle evidence contradicted the pleaded case. Around £1.2 million of genuine damages was forfeited and £150,000 of interim payments became repayable.

Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). Video, including social media footage, showed the claimant walking normally at a wedding and dancing at a barbecue; his walking stick was found to be a prop. A £2.9 million claim was dismissed. The genuine element was assessed at £97,595 and forfeited.

Iddon v Warner (2021). A clinical negligence claim inflated beyond £900,000 on the basis of disabling pain. Open-water swimming events and 10 km race results were found online. The claim was dismissed in its entirety and interim payments ordered repaid.

Wye Valley NHS Trust v Murphy [2024] EWHC 1912 (KB). The claimant's own posts and videos showed rugby and weightlifting during a £580,000 arm-injury claim. Contempt of court; an immediate custodial sentence.

Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust v Atwal [2018] EWHC 961 (QB). Facebook posts and YouTube videos showed a claimant who said he was disabled working as a DJ and courier. Contempt on fourteen counts; three months' imprisonment.

Zurich Insurance v Romaine [2019] EWCA Civ 851. A hearing-loss claimant who said he had no noisy hobbies was found online motorcycling and singing in a rock band. The Court of Appeal allowed committal proceedings even though the claim had been discontinued early. Discontinuance does not close the door.

AXA v Copley (2022). A Facebook photograph linked the claimant to a supposedly independent witness. The claim was found fundamentally dishonest and costs of £51,299.72 were ordered against the claimant.

The pattern across all of them is the same. The decisive material was public, it was findable, and it was found by the other side first.

The balance: where the threshold is not met

The threshold is a real one, and the cases show it. In Elgamal v Westminster City Council [2021] EWHC 2510 (QB), a video of the claimant performing a backflip established exaggeration but not fundamental dishonesty, and an award of £125,000 stood. In Aviva v Nadeem [2024] EWHC 3445 (KB), a contempt application largely failed because the inconsistencies had innocent explanations — and the judge's criticism was reserved for the file-handling of the original solicitors. The vast majority of claimants are honest, and most reviews of a claimant's online record will find nothing that contradicts the account. That result is worth having on the file, for reasons the next section explains.

What it costs the firm, and what is now being asked of it

The claimant's loss is total, but the firm's is not small. On a mid-value intermediate-track claim that collapses at the door of court, the firm typically loses fifteen to twenty thousand pounds of work in progress, its share of the disbursements, and the cost of acquiring the client in the first place. One such collapse can consume the net contribution of two or three claims that succeeded.

Two further pressures are newer. Wasted-costs applications against claimant solicitors are being made more readily: they generally fail where the solicitors acted properly, as in Williams-Henry (Re Wasted Costs) [2024] EWHC 2415 (KB), but they succeed where red flags were ignored — one firm was ordered to pay wasted costs and the insurer's application costs after layering a claim and withholding records. And the Solicitors Regulation Authority's 2025 thematic review of high-volume consumer claims referred nine of the twenty-five firms it visited for investigation. Documented client-vetting discipline is becoming a regulatory asset, not only a commercial one.

What protects the file

The answer is not suspicion of clients. It is a record, made at the point of decision, of what could be found and what it showed — attributed, weighed, and honest about what it does not establish. Where the record supports the claim, the firm has documented diligence and a client who is protected from ambush. Where it does not, the firm knows before it commits.

That is what The Extant Report provides: a scoped initial investigation against the specific assertions a claim rests on, with structured, source-referenced findings, a clear recommendation, and a plain statement of what could not be established. Where the record warrants it, The Extant Investigation goes deeper — but only with your approval. Lawfully sourced information only. Extant reports what the record shows; it does not allege, accuse or judge. The decision remains where it belongs — with the professional.

Learn about claims due diligence · Start an enquiry