Chronic Pain, Contested Injuries, and a Fundamental Dishonesty Allegation: How We Secured £100,000 for a Young Passenger
Some personal injury claims are straightforward. A clear accident, an admitted liability, a defined injury, and a negotiated settlement. This was not one of those cases. Over the course of several years, our client — a young woman of just 21 at the time of the accident — faced a defendant who disputed virtually everything, deployed surveillance footage against her, and pleaded fundamental dishonesty in their formal defence. Despite all of that, we secured her a settlement of £100,000.
Case at a Glance
Road traffic accident claim resolved for 21-year-old passenger after contested injuries
£100,000
- Type of Claim
Road traffic accident — passenger in a rear-end collision - Client’s Age at Accident
21 - Liability
Admitted - Disputed
Causation and quantum - Proceedings Issued
October 2021 - Trial Listed
July 2026 (10 days) - Settled
November 2025 (mediation)
The Accident and the Dispute
Our client was a passenger when another car drove into the rear of the vehicle she was travelling in. She had done nothing wrong, and liability was admitted. What followed, however, was years of fierce dispute about what that collision had actually done to her.
That distinction — between admitted liability and disputed causation — is one that catches many claimants off guard. An admission of liability is not an admission of the full extent of injury. The defendant accepted the accident happened. They did not accept that our client’s injuries were as serious, as enduring, or as life-altering as she and her medical team said they were.
Complex and Life-Altering Injuries
Our client’s injuries were not the kind that resolve with rest and physiotherapy. She suffered from chronic widespread pain, psychological injuries, seizures, and was ultimately diagnosed with functional neurological disorder (FND) — a condition in which the nervous system does not function properly, producing real and disabling symptoms that are nonetheless difficult to quantify in a legal context.
We initially instructed an orthopaedic expert, a neurologist, and a psychologist. As the severity of her condition became clearer, we extended the team to include a pain specialist and a neuropsychiatrist. Because our client had been unable to work since the accident, the largest single component of her claim was future loss of earnings — reflecting the fact that this young woman’s entire working life had potentially been derailed by a collision she did nothing to cause.
Given the complexity and value of the claim, we instructed senior counsel at an early stage. Counsel attended our client at her home and took a detailed witness statement — an approach that reflects both the seriousness of the claim and the sensitivity required when a client’s conditions make formal attendance difficult.
A Complication: Two Accidents, Two Solicitors
Seven months before the collision we were instructed on, our client had been involved in a separate accident — handled by different solicitors and pursued against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), as the driver in that earlier incident was never traced.
This meant two ongoing claims, two legal teams, and overlapping injuries. Chronic pain and functional neurological disorder do not come with neat timestamps. We liaised consistently with the other solicitors throughout to ensure the claims did not cut across each other and that our client’s overall position was properly protected.
Surveillance and a Fundamental Dishonesty Allegation
The defendant pleaded fundamental dishonesty in their formal defence — an allegation that, if successful, can strip a claimant of their entire damages award. To support it, they produced covert surveillance footage of our client.
We rebutted this carefully and thoroughly, working with our medical experts to demonstrate that what the footage showed was entirely consistent with the fluctuating nature of chronic pain and FND. These conditions do not render a person visibly incapacitated at all times, and the defendant’s attempt to use this material to portray our client as dishonest was firmly countered.
Mediation and Settlement
Proceedings were issued in October 2021, with a 10-day trial listed for July 2026. With the trial approaching, the parties attended mediation in November 2025, where the claim settled for £100,000.
For a young woman whose health remained complex and whose future remained uncertain, bringing this chapter to a close with a meaningful, certain recovery — without the ordeal of a lengthy trial — was a significant and hard-fought achievement.
What This Case Demonstrates
- Admitted liability is not the end of the fight — causation and quantum can be just as fiercely contested
- Complex injuries require the right experts, and the willingness to expand the medical team as the picture develops
- Fundamental dishonesty allegations must be rebutted with thorough, evidence-based work
- Early instruction of senior counsel in high-value cases shapes strategy and pays dividends throughout
- Parallel claims with overlapping injuries require careful, ongoing coordination between legal teams
Injured in a road traffic accident?
We handle personal injury claims on a no win, no fee basis. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation assessment of your case.
-
How much deposit do you need to buy a house in the UK?
-
What is a flood risk search when buying property?
-
How to prepare a watertight auction legal pack: A Manchester solicitor’s guide
-
What happens during the conveyancing process in the UK?
-
What Is the TR1 Transfer Form?
-
PM Law closure: help if your conveyancing is stuck
-
What does a conveyancing solicitor actually do?
-
What is conveyancing? A simple guide for first-time buyers
-
What is a gifted deposit and what proof is needed?
-
Buying a property with a sitting tenant: legal risks, rights & what buyers must know
