“Fundamental Dishonesty – It’s about more than just the claim”

Oluwole Coker v Ministry of Defence

On 23 April 2025, HHJ Karen Walden-Smith sitting in Cambridge County Court handed down judgment in the case of Oluwole Coker v Ministry of Defence and found that Mr Coker’s claim was fundamentally dishonest pursuant to Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. This was supplemented by HHJ Walden-Smith addressing the issue of costs and deductions following a hearing on 10 June 2025.

The case was handled by Ali Maghazachi, Associate Solicitor, on behalf of Keoghs LLP. The full judgment should be assessed as it addresses multiple issues such as the importance of background investigation, pathology of Non Freezing Cold injury (NFCI), surveillance evidence, expert Part 35 duties, and quantum.

Mr Coker was a former soldier in the British Army, who originally enlisted in April 2006 and served for around seven years before leaving. He re-enlisted in July 2015 and suffered an NFCI shortly thereafter while on exercise. He was medically discharged for NFCI from the Army on 25 January 2018.

During examination and interview with the parties’ respective experts, accounts were given by the claimant, and supported by his wife, that he:

• Suffered from constant pain in his hands and feet unless the outdoor temperature was 20 degrees Celsius or above;
• Required the use of a walking stick;
• Was unable to exercise such as going for a run/jog;
• Was unable to undertake personal and/or domestic tasks including the capability of holding a knife and fork; and
• Received benefits from the DWP due to the alleged severity of his NFCI and symptoms.

Mr Coker had initially presented to the claimant’s vascular surgeon, Mr Frank Cross, in August 2018. While Mr Coker had presented with some unusual symptoms, including an inability to distinguish between sharp and blunt sensation, he did not (at that time) present as requiring a walking stick. Importantly, NFCI is not a progressive injury – it should not deteriorate, absent further causative cold exposure.

Against this background the Ministry of Defence was alerted to a potential fraud/exaggeration, following further inconsistent examination findings when the claimant attended the defendant’s vascular surgeon, Mr Michael Gaunt. This examination was in December 2020, two years after he had been assessed by Mr Cross. At this point, the claimant presented using two walking sticks to move around during examination.

Cognisant of the evidential burden to prove Fundamental Dishonestly, Keoghs arranged for surveillance over multiple days and undertook Intel searches. Requests for specific disclosure were made in relation to employment records of a non-party & DWP records.

Keoghs uncovered a history of inconsistencies and pleaded a positive case of Fundamental Dishonesty on the basis that:

1. The evidence regarding the use of a walking stick was inconsistent;
2. Mr Coker was recorded going for a jog/run;
3. Mr Coker was recorded being outside in temperatures of 5 degrees Celsius and below without wearing any gloves or excessive additional clothing contrary to his medical presentation;
4. Mr Coker was recorded as having recorded 0kg on a dynamometer for grip strength and yet was recorded having no difficulties carrying or picking up items; and
5. Video surveillance showed Mr Coker walking in flip flops and a t-shirt for over 20 minutes. This was the same outdoor temperature that he attended his medical expert (Mr Cross) for his second examination in July 2021, where he was wearing thick insulating woolly gloves, thick socks and “quite thick trainers”.

In all the video surveillance, Mr Coker was found to have no issues with his gait and was never seen using a walking stick.

Mr Coker denied the MOD’s allegations. Prior to the trial, My Coker served a Final Schedule of Loss in the sum of £726,030.

The case was heard in the Cambridge County Court over a five-day period. The Court heard from six experts in the fields of Vascular, Psychiatry and Employment.

Mr Coker gave evidence for over two and a half days relating to all issues.

HHJ Walden Smith found Mr Coker to be Fundamentally Dishonest, finding the following:

NFCI diagnosis and symptoms

• Mr Coker suffered a mild NFCI from which he recovered in full prior to his medical discharge from the Army.
• Mr Coker did not suffer from any exacerbations.

Fundamental Dishonesty

• Mr Coker was exaggerating the impact of his NFCI and that he was doing so in order to recover a much greater sum in damages
• Mr Coker’s behaviour on the video surveillance videos shows that he had a “completely different presentation when he was not aware he was being observed.”
• Mr Coker’s misrepresentations were not solely confined to the MOD but also to the DWP, AFCS, other employers, medical experts, and in statements to the court.
• It was described at paragraph 174 as “difficult to imagine a more stark case of deliberate misrepresentation”,

Quantum

At paragraph 182 of the judgment, HHJ Walden-Smith stated:

“Mr Coker decided to exaggerate the extent of his injuries to such an extent in order to make a case that the NFCI was having an impact upon him which was far greater than the true situation.”

In making this assessment she contended that the damages the claimant was entitled to, including any psychiatric damage, was not more than £25,000 gross of any deductions.

Substantial Injustice

HHJ Walden Smith did state that it would be substantially unjust if he did not recover the £25,000 gross. At a separate hearing on 10 June 2025, she did find that after contributory negligence was taken into account and an AFCS award that had been previously made, the claimant would recover £0. As such, there was no need for the defendant to seek permission to appeal this point.

HHJ Walden Smith ordered that despite making a finding of substantial injustice, the MOD was clearly the successful party. HHJ Walden-Smith made clear that the claimant had defrauded the MOD and misled the court. As such, under CPR 44.2(4) the court will have regard to all the circumstances including the conduct of all the parties, which in this case was so significant that she found that the claimant should pay the MOD’s costs on the indemnity basis.

Permission to appeal by the claimant was refused.

Lessons

1.    A potentially dishonest claimant will likely have been dishonest with third parties in the past.

A claimant’s dishonesty or exaggeration are not generally limited to his dishonest claim. While positive video surveillance is a powerful tool, HHJ Walden-Smith relied heavily on the claimant’s presentation to third parties to demonstrate that he was an individual who exaggerated for financial gain.

Obtaining records from current and previous employers, DWP and other third parties may help support a defence of a dishonest claim.

2.      Collate the inconsistencies to help build a picture of dishonesty.

It is imperative that you help build a picture of inconsistency to help support a claim for dishonesty. This may be in the form of a table or a spreadsheet, for example. If you have a claimant who is presenting with symptoms that are contradicted by other evidence such as surveillance, then the more inconsistencies you can demonstrate, the stronger your case is.

 Author: Ali Maghazachi - Associate