England and Wales Case Law

Kerry Middleton v Carnival PLC t/a P&O Cruises

The Defendant did not act in a manner consistent with ambush; disclosure of surveillance evidence was reasonable given procedural chronology and cooperation. The Claimant had a fair opportunity to address the evidence. The time and circumstances of disclosure do not warrant exclusion under case management powers. Surveillance evidence is admitted.

Source excerpt

• Admissibility of evidence
• Surveillance evidence
• Case management
• Ambush
• Quantum of damages

Read case analysis

Atuanya v Ministry of Defence

Atuanya v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 758 (KB) (30 March 2026)

The High Court held that the claimant’s discontinued NFCI claim was fundamentally dishonest because he exaggerated symptoms and limitations, losing QOCS protection.

• Qualified one-way costs shifting (qocs)
• Fundamental dishonesty
• Non-freezing cold injury (nfci)
• Costs orders
• Surveillance evidence
• Exaggeration of injury

Read case analysis

Middleton v Carnival PLC (t/a P&O Cruises)

Middleton v Carnival PLC (t/a P&O Cruises) [2026] EWHC 235 (KB) (09 February 2026)

The High Court admitted surveillance footage in a personal injury claim, finding the defendant’s disclosure was not an ambush and had not been culpably late.

• Admissibility of evidence
• Surveillance evidence
• Case management
• Trial adjournment
• Ambush in litigation
• Surveillance-evidence

Read case analysis

Perrin v Walsh (Rev1)

Perrin v Walsh (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 2536 (KB) (09 October 2025)

The High Court allowed reliance on surveillance evidence despite serious editing and disclosure failings, and refused specific disclosure of a draft expert report.

• Surveillance evidence
• Disclosure
• Expert evidence
• Case management
• Exclusion of evidence
• Surveillance-evidence

Read case analysis

Michele Perrin v Jackie Walsh

The surveillance evidence, despite procedural flaws and negligent editing, was not deliberately manipulated to prejudice the Claimant and retains probative value. The errors do not reach the threshold for exclusion under CPR 32.1. All unedited footage must be disclosed, and a new compilation agreed. The Claimant is not entitled to inspection of the Defendant's neuropsychologist's draft report, as privilege was not waived and CPR 35.10(3) was complied with; no reasonable grounds exist to consider the statement of instructions inaccurate or incomplete.

Source excerpt

• Surveillance evidence
• Disclosure of expert reports
• Litigation privilege
• Case management
• Fundamental dishonesty

Read case analysis

Mehmood v Mayor

Mehmood v Mayor [2024] EWHC 1057 (KB) (08 May 2024)

The High Court dismissed a claimant’s interim payment application in a personal injury claim where fundamental dishonesty was pleaded and liability was not admitted.

• Interim payments
• Capacity
• Fundamental dishonesty
• Section 57 criminal justice and courts act 2015
• Surveillance evidence
• Interim-payments

Read case analysis

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust v Bogmer (Rev1)

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust v Bogmer (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 1724 (KB) (10 July 2023)

The High Court found the defendant in contempt for knowingly exaggerating post-surgery disability and making false statements in verified documents and to experts.

• Dishonest statements
• False claims
• Abuse of process
• Committal for contempt
• Clinical negligence
• Surveillance evidence

Read case analysis

Mantey v Ministry of Defence

Mantey v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 761 (KB) (05 April 2023)

The High Court found a former soldier’s personal injury claim was fundamentally dishonest after surveillance footage contradicted his reported disabilities.

• Fundamental dishonesty
• Qualified one-way costs shifting (qocs)
• Surveillance evidence
• Personal injury fraud
• Costs orders
• Fundamental-dishonesty

Read case analysis

Michael Nana Mantey v Ministry of Defence

The High Court found the claimant had dishonestly exaggerated a personal injury claim using false symptom reports and inconsistent conduct shown on surveillance footage.

• Fundamental dishonesty
• Qualified one-way costs shifting (qocs)
• Personal injury damages
• Surveillance evidence
• Medical evidence
• Fundamental-dishonesty

Read case analysis

Stannard Euro Garages Ltd

Stannard Euro Garages Ltd [2022] EW Misc 3 (CC) (02 March 2022)

The County Court refused to strike out a personal injury claim for fundamental dishonesty before trial, holding that disputed facts required oral evidence and cross-examination.

• Fundamental dishonesty
• Abuse of process
• Section 57 criminal justice and courts act 2015
• Strike out applications
• Surveillance evidence
• Quantum of damages

Read case analysis