A woman who received compensation for injuries sustained in a car accident has been found in contempt of court and seen her settlement wiped out at Liverpool’s High Court.
Charity worker Joanne Kirk was involved in a rear-shunt accident on 14 September 2001, in which Carol Walton collided with the back of her car on the A6 in Bamber Bridge.
Mrs Kirk, 45, of Royalty Lane, New Longton, then launched a legal claim for £800,000 against Mrs Walton, claiming that as a result of the accident, she had developed fibromyalgia, a painful condition affecting the joints and muscles. Mrs Walton’s insurers did not dispute liability for the accident but did disagree with the level of compensation being sought. In the end Mrs Kirk agreed to settle the claim for £25,000 at Stockport County Court on 26 June 2007. She had told the court she needed elbow crutches and sometimes a wheelchair to get around, could only walk ten steps without the assistance of another person, and was bed-ridden on bad days.
Unbeknownst to Mrs Kirk, private investigators, hired by the insurers of Mrs Walton, recorded footage showing a supposedly disabled Mrs Kirk, “walking, driving and shopping”, over a period of five months. After reviewing the footage, the insurance company applied to the High Court in London for permission to bring landmark proceedings, claiming Mrs Kirk had lied about the extent of her disabilities in order to obtain a higher compensation payout.
At the hearing in July 2008, the court heard that Mrs Watson insurers, RBS Insurance, had instructed a doctor who claimed the surveillance footage of Mrs Kirk “does not suggest there is any significant muscular-skeletal pain causing significant disability”. In the first case of its kind Mrs Justice Cox granted the insurers application. She told the court: “The defendant’s insurers contend that these investigations revealed that the claimant various statements in documents – verified by a statement of truth – as to the nature and effect of her injuries and disabilities were untrue.”
A consultant rheumatologist also instructed by the insurers had described her behaviour in relation to her present claim in his opinion as “deliberately exaggerated”. He concluded: “Exaggeration is the major and probably dominant feature. I believe Mrs Kirk’s condition is now no worse than before the accident, and she has the same capacity for paid employment and household duties. Mrs Kirk has not developed a new illness of fibromyalgia.”
Mrs Justice Cox concluded the hearing saying: “There is, in my judgment, a strong public interest in personal injury claimants pursuing honest claims before the courts. I take into account that fibromyalgia is a controversial and non-specific diagnosis, with a spectrum of symptoms which may be variable, resulting in a sufferer having good days and bad days. All these matters seem to me to go to the merits of the claimant’s defence to the allegations and will merit careful consideration at the hearing. However, on the material presently before me, there is a strong case which requires an answer from Mrs Kirk in contempt proceedings.”
The contempt of court hearing was held this week at the High Court in Liverpool. Mrs Kirk was given the chance to defend herself was not successful. Mr Justice Coulson ruled that two allegations amounted to contempt. Mrs Kirk was ordered to pay a £2,500 and half of Mrs Walton’s court costs. This will wipe out her entire compensation payout.
Mr Justice Coulson spared Mrs Kirk a jail term but ruled it was necessary to mark such conduct with a “necessary deterrent”.
Kate Lotts, Director of Specialist Claims at RBS Insurance said: “Significantly, this landmark decision gives insurers a means to pursue not just their own policyholders, but also fraudulent third parties. With fraud adding around £40 to an average insurance premium, any measures which make fraud less attractive to fraudsters is good news for honest policyholders.”