header-logo header-logo

Fundamental dishonesty claimant convicted

17 February 2020
Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
A man who exaggerated his injuries after falling in a pothole has been successfully prosecuted for contempt of court by Walsall Council

A man who exaggerated his injuries after falling in a pothole has been successfully prosecuted for contempt of court by Walsall Council

Nicholas McDaid, 35, of Bloxwich, narrowly escaped an immediate custodial sentence after the hearing. He fully admitted his guilt before the court and was sentenced to two months in prison suspended for 12 months for contempt of court. He was also ordered to pay Walsall Council’s prosecution costs.

McDaid brought a personal injury claim against the council in 2013 for an ankle injury caused by a pothole trip while walking his dogs. He claimed he was unable to work.

However, evidence emerged of him engaged in extreme sports, during this time, competing in ’Iron Man’ triathlons, full and half marathons, cycling challenges and scoring tries for his local Rugby Club. Some of these athletic activities were uploaded to a personal fitness app.

Walsall Council initially paid McDaid an interim payment of about £12,000 but McDaid’s dishonesty came to light, He claimed for loss of earnings and care by his wife and lied to medical experts about his sporting activities.

A court found him ‘fundamentally dishonest’.

McDaid appealed unsuccessfully, arguing that although he had been ‘dishonest’, he had not been ‘fundamentally dishonest’. Mr Justice Martin Spencer, in Birmingham County Court, rejected his argument.

Walsall Council pursued a private prosecution for contempt of court leading to his criminal conviction, which was upheld in December 2019. McDaid pleaded guilty on six counts of contempt of court.

The council said the personal injury claim, if successful, could have cost it more than £200,000 in compensation and costs.

Paul Wainwright, partner at Browne Jacobson, who acted for Walsall Council, said: ‘Given the council’s concerns which were raised by its expert, it was right that a full and thorough investigation was carried out.

‘Those investigations revealed extensive sporting activity which McDaid had dishonestly failed to evidence before the court, giving a false and misleading impression of the effect of his injury for financial gain. The council with Browne Jacobson’s help has clearly demonstrated its determination to take action to prevent fraud, protect the public purse and prosecute fraudsters.’ 

Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll