PI Brief Update

A Dishonest Mistake: Conscious Exaggeration and Fundamental Dishonesty in Uchechukwu Atuanya v Ministry of Defence - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers

28/04/26. On 30 March 2026, Rory Dunlop KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, handed down his judgment in Uchechukwu Atuanya v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 758 (KB). The sole issue for determination was whether the Claimant had been fundamentally dishonesty (FD) within the meaning of CPR r44.16(1).

Background

The Claim was for damages for a non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) and associated psychiatric issues sustained while serving in the Army. The Claimant had been medically discharged in 2013 after 14 years of service. The neurological experts agreed that the Claimant had a mild NFCI but that it would have had a negligible impact. However, there was also evidence that the Claimant suffered from a psychiatric illness.

Permission was sought to amend the Defence to include an allegation of FD following the disclosure of covert surveillance evidence. The footage showed that the Claimant had attended his medical appointments heavily clad and limping with an unusual gait but that these features were not present on another day in similar conditions. In their subsequent (second) joint report, the neurological experts expressed concern about malingering. A notice of discontinuance was served but the trail was maintained in order to determine FD. The Defence experts attended and were cross-examined by the Claimant, who appeared in person.

Ruling: The Claimant was Fundamentally Dishonest

It was posited by one expert that some patients exaggerate to convince – they are so eager to convey their suffering that they say thing they know are not true. The Judge considered this dishonest for two reasons: (1) the ordinary person would consider telling untruths dishonest, especially in a claim for money; (2) including such individuals within QOCS would flout its purpose – to encourage honesty.

The Judge went on to consider that the Claimant was an unreliable witness but this did not necessarily make him dishonest. Nevertheless, the Claimant had exaggerated his symptoms and, whilst those exaggerations were not calculated, some of them were conscious. The Claimant had exaggerated to convince; that was dishonest.

The Claimant had not been dishonest in describing his psychological difficulties. There was overwhelming evidence of a genuine mental illness, including longstanding reporting and several years of anti-depressants. This could be reconciled with the surveillance evidence. However, the Claimant did consciously exaggerate his need for warm clothing both by deliberately overstating that need and attending his medical examinations heavily clad. That was revealed by the surveillance evidence which showed him wearing a t-shirt in similar conditions. His particular sensitivity to cold was fundamental to his claim, which included £150,000 for disadvantage on the open labour market due to his inability to work in a cold environment. The Claimant was held to be fundamentally dishonest on that basis. It was therefore unnecessary to reach a decision on other allegations of FD.

Comment

This decision is a reminder that dishonesty is an objective standard. It is also a warning to Claimants that conscious exaggeration can result in a finding of FD, even if it is not calculated. Whether a Claimant has consciously or unconsciously exaggerated may be a difficult to decipher, but the cost consequences of that finding are likely to be significant.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/ilbusca