Use of surveillance evidence in personal injury claims (Karapetianas v Kent and Sussex Loft Conversions)

Table of contents

• Original news
• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What issues did this case raise?
• To what extent is the judgment helpful in clarifying the law in this area?
• What are the implications for practitioners? What will they need to be mindful of when advising in this area?
• Are there still any grey areas or unresolved issues practitioners will need to watch out for? If so, how can they avoid any possible pitfalls?

Article summary

Personal Injury analysis: The High Court has found a significant discrepancy between a claimant’s presentation in covert surveillance evidence with that of the the medico-legal evidence in a personal injury claim. However the High Court declined to strike out the claim for abuse of process. Jack Ferro, barrister at Crown Office Chambers, comments on what lessons can be learned from this case for practitioners.