Mark Noble was critically injured in a road traffic accident when a car pulled out in front of him as he rode his motorbike.

The collision happened in Cadnam, Hampshire, in September 2003, and left him with a broken pelvis, a spinal injury, and injuries to his left leg, both wrists and head.

Mr Noble was left needing several operations and suffering ongoing symptoms.

Despite this, the insurer of the third party, Direct Line, attempted to recover some of the original £3.4m damages awarded to Mr Noble, who received damages not only for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, but also for cost of care and loss of earnings, as well as other heads of damage.

Direct Line was contacted by one of Mr Noble's neighbours, who claimed he had exaggerated his symptoms, prompting Direct Line to obtain and use video footage to appeal the earlier damages award. 

The footage showed Mr Noble doing tasks which, based on the initial evidence, he was unlikely to have been able to do. The judge in the first hearing heard evidence that Mr Noble couldn't continue to work due to the 'severe and life-threatening' fracture to his pelvis. 

Direct Line also claimed that Mr Noble had failed to use the damages for care or adaptations to his home.

Expert evidence used at the appeal confirmed that whilst it was unusual to see someone recover from such injuries, it is possible and has happened in the past. The judge stated that he could see why a claimant might decide to 'forgo some or most of the aids and assistance for which he claimed and spend the money instead on other things, which in his mind compensated him for his loss of amenity'.

He accepted that the claimant had done better than expected, and that this doesn't mean he'd deceived the court. The judge said: "At the time of the [initial] trial, Mr Noble was determined to try to walk unaided and may have been confident that somehow he would succeed in doing so, but he did not dishonestly conceal from the court or the expert witnesses his then true state of disability, or dishonestly emphasise his disability. The claim that he dishonestly misled the court at the [initial] trial is accordingly dismissed."

The judge felt that Direct Line had failed to prove the allegation of fraud and called Mr Noble 'a proud and determined man'.

Fraud is more common in road traffic accidents and insurers have been using video surveillance for some time to discredit claimants. 

In 2009, a high profile case went before the High Court in which the claimant was found in contempt of court for making false statements in which she exaggerated her injuries.  Surveillance and medical evidence contradicted the claimant's own evidence that she was disabled following the road traffic accident. 

Following the hearing, she was forced to pay not only her own legal fees, but also a fine and part of the defendant's costs. 

As fraud increases, so does the insurance industry's attempts to combat it. Advanced technology is being used to identify possible fraud, with insurers sharing information to try and stay ahead of the criminals. 

Unfortunately, there will be circumstances in which genuine claims such as Mr Noble's come under scrutiny.

Tell us what you think

All documents should be read and used in accordance with the terms and conditions. This document is for your general information only and is not a detailed statement of the law. It is provided to you free of charge and should not be used as a substitute for specific legal advice. If you require specific legal advice please contact our helpline on 03700 86 86 86.