Finding of Fundamental Dishonesty in High Court claim brought by Claimant caught running the London Marathon

Timon v Talman (1) and Ageas Insurance (2)

High Court, King’s Bench Division – Judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie 

View the Judgment here

The High Court has made a finding of fundamental dishonesty against a claimant and ordered him to repay the interim payment that was made by the insurer.

The Claimant was a talented semi-professional footballer who in July 2020 at the age of 19 suffered serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury and a fractured spine, as a result of the First Defendant driving a car into him. The Claimant commenced proceedings in the High Court for personal injury, claiming that the accident had caused him ongoing physical and cognitive disabilities, such that he had to give up his intended career as a junior stockbroker. His claimed lack of capacity from his brain injury was such that he required a litigation friend in the proceedings. The High Court gave permission for expert evidence across 9 different disciplines. The Claimant told various medical experts that his ongoing back pain limited his walking distance and his ability to engage in sports.  

In 2025 the Second Defendant disclosed social media and surveillance evidence which demonstrated that the Claimant had been playing competitive football since 2021 and that in 2023 he had run the London Marathon in 4 hours 20 minutes. Three days after running the marathon, he told the case manager for the purpose of an initial needs assessment that he had withdrawn from his pre-accident sporting hobbies and that, while he could walk to his local shop and back, that would leave him fatigued. 

The Claimant discontinued his claim. The Second Defendant applied under CPR 44.16 to lift the Claimant’s protection under the qualified one-way costs shifting regime so that it could enforce its costs of over £150,000 and under CPR 25.20 for a return of the interim payments. 

The Judge considered the authorities including London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (In Liquidation) v Sinfield and Muyepa v Ministry of Defence, as well as his own recent decisions in Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd and Greening-Steer v Ainge. After hearing the Claimant give evidence, the Judge found that the Claimant had been dishonest and that the financial effect on the claim from him lying about his physical abilities was substantial and that the dishonesty had been fundamental. 

Zoe Thompson, Head of Insurance Fraud at Nine Chambers, appeared for Ageas Insurance and was instructed by Rob Barrett of DWF and Andrew Ross of Ageas Insurance.