DACB and Aviva in partnership tackle dishonesty in chronic pain claim.
In a forceful judgment handed down on 26 September 2025, His Honour Judge Saggerson dismissed the personal injury claim brought by Mrs Zakia Din against Aviva Insurance Limited, in which Jennifer Brown & Rachel Glover of DAC Beachcroft CSG (CSG) acted on behalf of Aviva, finding the claim to be fundamentally dishonest. HHJ Saggerson described the claimant's case as “complete fabrication" and found that the claimant and her husband had "concocted a “whiplash” story deliberately designed to get money from an insurer."
The case, heard over four days in September, revolved around a minor road traffic accident in 2017, an alleged cascade of physical and psychological injuries and a claim in the region of £127,000.
Background
The claimant, aged 50, was a passenger in a car involved in a low-speed road traffic accident in October 2017. She described a dramatic accident causing her severe trauma and hysteria which, it was claimed, caused her significant physical and psychological injuries, including chronic pain and PTSD, resulting from the incident.
Aviva admitted liability for the accident but disputed causation and the extent of the alleged injuries.
The claim raised concerns from the outset and, in conjunction with Aviva, CSG determined a strategy, utilising specialists from across the business including the fraud, complex injury and intelligence teams to develop a robust approach to defending the claim. It was pleaded as being a low speed impact from the outset and after surveillance evidence was obtained, the defence was amended to include an assertion of fundamental dishonesty on the part of the claimant.
Key factors
Unusual circumstances/witness evidence: The claimant, supported by her husband, presented a very dramatic account of the accident. She described herself as a front seat passenger when she experienced a shocking thud, whereby she thought they were "going to roll over and die," including describing how the passenger window received a “missile-like” strike from a motorcyclist’s helmet.
The motorcyclist, insured by Aviva, and the independent witness described a much more mundane incident whereby the footpeg of one motorbike came into contact with the rear passenger side of the car, causing the rider to 'stop and flop' – placing his hand on the car to steady and then re-right himself.
Preferring Aviva's evidence, the judge found that the differences in witness accounts were "so stark as to be inexplicable on the grounds that the claimant and her husband may be just prone to exaggeration and drama."
Engineering evidence: This included a joint statement which confirmed there was no indication of any efficient exchange of momentum and that any movement was no more than such produced by ordinary driving. The claimant's version of events was found to be "utterly inconsistent" with this evidence.
Medical evidence: The orthopaedic experts did not attend trial, being in agreement that a road traffic collision (even a minor one) could disrupt the soft tissues of the neck. HHJ Saggerson found that the joint statement was "only a provisional starting point." Finding that there had been no impact with the passenger window and no forward/backwards momentum, he dismissed the evidence.
Having initially deferred to the orthopaedic evidence in relation to any physical injuries, Dr Alexander-Williams (Pain Consultant for Aviva), having heard the evidence in court, opined on reflection that he was much more comfortable with the conclusion that this was, if anything, a case of chronic primary pain unrelated to a mechanical pathway. HHJ Saggerson concluded this must be right, there was "no obvious physical cause for the claimant’s pain." The critical aspect of this is: "if anything".
The evidence of the claimant's Psychologist, Mr Matthew Akal, received particular criticism, HHJ Saggerson deciding that he "cannot attribute any weight" to his diagnosis of PTSD. HHJ Saggerson referred to the assessment having been by telephone, Mr Akal having accepted that annotation of medical records he may have seen was patchy and Mr Akal was unclear about the extent to which the claimant's pre-existing medical vulnerabilities had been taken into account (there being an extensive history). The judge was not reassured when Mr Akal could not recall the details of professional complaints that had been made against him resulting in interim practice restrictions earlier in the year.
Records were extensive and included both medical and employment records. Scrutiny of those was important. Of particular note, the claimant's employment records showed continued high performance at work and there was a distinct lack of any report about the index incident: these were in stark contrast to the picture presented to medical clinicians.
Intelligence evidence showed the claimant had been running an essential oils business and whilst this may have been modest, she had failed to mention this to any of the clinicians.
Surveillance footage showing the claimant using her right arm freely and without discomfort, shortly after a medical consultation in which she had claimed severe pain and disability, was pivotal with HHJ Saggerson noting that her explanations had a "hollow ring" and were not accepted.
Summary
Interdisciplinary teamwork within CSG and our individual attention to detail successfully highlighted the number of inconsistencies in the claimant's claim, in particular her reporting and presentation to clinicians, medical experts, her employer (an international bank) and, ultimately, to the court during her three hour cross examination.
This decision helpfully reminds us that with the right evidence, utilised and presented well, the court can decide that medical evidence is simply a starting point and, where appropriate, can be totally disregarded if lay evidence doesn't support an injury occurring.
Ultimately this outcome is a result of a collaboration of multiple individual strengths within CSG, with vision and full support from Aviva and with the key threads being deftly woven together at trial by Arun Katyar of 12KBW.
Liz Jones, Head of Complex injury, said "a fantastic example of effective cross specialism collaboration with our client - a formidable team approach!"
Claire Laver, Head of Fraud, said "our unique approach to defending large loss fraud is that our expert lawyers work seamlessly together to design multifaceted and robust strategies to defeat high value fraud in complex injury claims. This is a paradigm example of how in partnership with Aviva, we have secured a fantastic outcome as a result of this approach."
For more information or advice, please contact a member of our Complex Injury Team.
