Win for Zurich customer as claimant found to be fundamentally dishonest
06/29/2022
Judgment was handed down by HHJ Melissa Clark, following a four-day trial in the case of Sumegi v Gate Gourmet UK Ltd.
The case concerned a chef who suffered an accident at work, which involved the claimant bending down moving a tray of fish out of a fridge, as long ago as October 2012. However, medical experts hinted that perhaps the issues with the Claimant were suspicious.
Background of the claim
The claim commenced as a low-value fast-track claim but was re-tracked, and taken on by the Large Loss Personal Injury Team when the value shot up to in excess of £500,000. After the claimant alleged, that he had failed to recover from a back injury with associated urological and gastroenterological symptoms which he said prevented him from returning to work in kitchens.
Surveillance needed
After medical experts hinted towards these issues being suspicious, the defendant sought surveillance sign off and secured footage showing a claimant who was not spending 18 hours in bed every day as he told the medical experts. Through tenacious management of disclosure by the Defendant’s legal team, the Defendant was able to expose the claimant as a persistent and committed fraudster. Social media material proved particularly devastating as a Facebook page for the claimants wife was found which provided a fountain of information and solid evidence against the claimant. It revealed Mr Sumegi to be a hands-on father to his young family who he had driven across the country on numerous beach holidays and camping trips to facilitate active hobbies like fishing, paddle boarding and kayaking, despite claiming that he was so disabled he could only work 5 hours a week at home and being supported on benefits. Surveillance also demonstrated the claimant’s propensity to use a walking aid only when attending medico-legal appointments.
Court Findings
In a comprehensive, thorough and careful judgment the Court found:
- The Claimant knew that he was not functionally limited to the extent that he said he was to the medical-legal experts.
- The Claimant was dishonest in his third witness statement and in oral evidence in relation to events surrounding a ‘second accident’ that occurred 7 months post-accident which he attributed symptoms from to the original accident in order to exaggerate his injuries to his back.
- The Claimant failed to report his relevant past medical history including his injury from the original accident and the physiotherapy he was receiving in relation to a separate road traffic incident (that the claimant failed to disclose during proceedings).
- The Claimant did not leave the Defendant’s employment because of pain arising from his back injury, but to look after his wife and children and that, on balance, the Claimant made that assertion in pleadings, to the medical experts and in his evidence because he believed it would increase the value of his claim in these proceedings.
- The Claimant made false reports and gave false evidence about urinary and faecal incontinence, which he knew were false, for the purpose of increasing the value of this claim.
As such HHJ Melissa Clark found the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest and dismissed his claim pursuant to section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. She ordered the claimant to repay an interim payment plus interest and awarded the defendant its costs on the indemnity basis with a substantial payment on account of costs.
