This site uses cookies.

Another reminder about the risks of surveillance footage: Mantey v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 761 (KB) - Anisa Kassamali, Temple Garden Chambers

23/04/23. Eyre J considered whether or not a former soldier had been fundamentally dishonest in his personal injury claim in light of surveillance footage.


The claimant sought damages from the Ministry of Defence (The “MoD”) for Non-Freezing Cold Injury (“NFCI”) which he said he had suffered because of the MoD’s negligence and/or breach of statutory duty. The claimant said that he was suffering sundry continuing disabling symptoms and his medical evidence provided details on this. However, the claim was discontinued after the MoD adduced video-recorded surveillance evidence which was said to be inconsistent with those alleged symptoms. The case nonetheless continued in relation to the issue whether the claim was fundamentally dishonest...

Image ©

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.