Alexander Macpherson obtains finding of fundamental dishonesty at summary judgment application
12th Mar 2026
Judgment was given yesterday in the case of Ayaz v Royal & Sun Alliance, a substantial personal injury claim in which Mr Ayaz was alleging ongoing severe disability arising from a road traffic accident in 2020. RSA applied for summary judgment prior to trial on the basis that Mr Ayaz had no real prospect of avoiding a finding of fundamental dishonesty.
HHJ Saunders sitting in Central London County Court held that the surveillance evidence which had been gathered by RSA was so compelling that he could safely conclude that a finding of fundamental dishonesty was inevitable, even without the case proceeding to trial. He relied upon the comments of Cockerill J in Foglia v Family Officer [2021] EWHC 650 when she concluded that, although it would be an unusual case in which allegations of fraud could be determined on a summary basis, there was no actual impediment to the court granting summary judgment where dishonesty is alleged if the requirements of CPR r.24.2 are met. The judge also noted the reference by HHJ Moloney QC in Gosling v Hailo (2014) to the “well-known hallmark of dishonesty” which was the person who uses a mobility aid when seeing medical experts, but not at other times.
Mr Ayaz was filmed on no fewer than four distinct occasions attending on medico-legal experts in a wheelchair, when footage taken earlier and later on the same days showed him mobilising without any apparent disability. This material, when combined with the fact that Mr Ayaz had failed to serve any explanatory evidence in response to the surveillance footage despite having been given the opportunity to do so, was sufficient to establish that the claim was fundamentally dishonest for the purposes of s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 without the need for a trial.
The case is a useful reminder that it is not always necessary to proceed to trial to secure a finding of fundamental dishonesty where the defendant’s evidence is sufficiently clear-cut. It will be a highly relevant factor that the claimant has been given a suitable opportunity to provide an explanation for the defendant’s evidence but has elected not to do so.
Alexander Macpherson was instructed by Jennifer Brown and Emma Guest of DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd on behalf of the successful Defendant.
