header-logo header-logo

10 June 2026
Issue: 8165 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Insurance / reinsurance , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Social media posts oust £4m personal injury claim

A motorcyclist who claimed £4m for personal injury has won the dubious honour of making the largest fundamental dishonesty claim ever rejected under the Untraced Drivers’ Agreement 2017

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), with the help of Keoghs, discovered social media posts showing the claimant karting and attaching tow ropes for a vehicle recovery business he set up using nearly £190,000 in interim payments. This contradicted his claims, supported by expert evidence, of limited mobility to the extent he could not walk for more than 50m and was unable to work.

Paul Baxter, partner at Keoghs, who assisted MIB, said the outcome was ‘a significant victory’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll