Dominic Regan reflects on unembarrassed liars, procedural pitfalls & the Chancery Division on the chopping block
Mr Justice Ritchie can spot fundamental dishonesty from afar. In Greening-Steer v Ainge [2026] EWHC 1239 (KB), after a seven-day trial, he said: ‘I conclude that the claimant has been a regular, detailed, unembarrassed liar, with the aim of gaining higher damages than he is honestly entitled to... The main areas of untruth are: his mobility, his pain, his spasms, his strength, his ability to drive, his concentration, his memory, his fatigue, his urinary urgency, his ability to work, his sexual functioning, his smell and taste, his balance, his pain and his foot drop. I consider that objectively the man on the Clapham Omnibus and the Woman on the Sheffield Tram would consider that his grossly exaggerated presentation of his level of disability was dishonest, taking into account the facts which the claimant himself knew.’
The upshot was that the victim of admitted negligence was denied damages of £378,420, which was the true value of his case.
On the one occasion when I had
