Personal injury defendants with evidence of dishonesty will need to consider carefully whether to plead fraud, says Anna Pickering
When the court at first instance overturned the settlement in Hayward v Zurich Insurance Co Plc and held that Zurich could return to court to rescind the agreement where new evidence of fraud came to light, insurers breathed a sigh of relief.
Facts of the case
Colin Hayward brought a claim for £420,000 against his employer after suffering an injury at work. Zurich obtained covert surveillance evidence calling into question the extent of his residual injuries and made an offer of £134,973 in full and final settlement before the case came to trial. The settlement was concluded in an order approved by the court.
Three years later Zurich received information from Mr Hayward’s neighbours that he appeared to have suffered no lasting ill effects from the accident. Zurich returned to court to reclaim some of the damages from Hayward on the grounds of misrepresentations. The court ruled in Zurich’s favour, ordering Mr Hayward to repay £120,253. He appealed on the basis that
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7806223b_1)
