header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 May 2011 / Lisa Sullivan
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Under surveillance

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The court’s decision in Noble v Owens illustrates why judgments are and should be final, says Lisa Sullivan

Once the trial is over and time for appeal has expired, judgment is final and parties to litigation, winners or losers, can get on with their lives. Or can they? In Noble v Owens [2011] EWHC 534 (QB), Direct Line tried, for the first time, to use surveillance evidence obtained after trial to overturn the damages award made at trial. It failed. Other than the obvious interest in the outcome of the trial as a test case for this sort of litigation, the decision is interesting in that it illustrates why judgments are and should be final.

Background

In September 2003, Mark Noble suffered serious injuries to his pelvis, left leg, both arms and spine in a motorcycle accident. In March 2008 he was awarded damages of £3.397m following a trial lasting nine days. Field J found that Noble could not walk unaided outside the house. With crutches, he could walk about 75–80 feet. Otherwise he

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll