Better Solicitors. Better Results

Call Us Free: 0800 999 6661

  • £65,000 for local client who was injured at work Read More
  • £1 million for injured worker whose case had been closed by a leading national firm and senior barrister Read More
  • £70,000 for local client who dislocated his shoulder following a fall at work Read More
  • £25,000 recovered for injured shopper Read More
  • £175,000 recovered for Injured Factory Operative Following an Accident at Work Read More
  • £800,000 for professional negligence losses Read More
  • £575,000 for serious eye injuries due to medical negligence Read More
  • £10,000 recovered for client who fell at local Bury retail park Read More
  • £6,000 recovered for a local client against Bury Council Read More
  • £15,000 for tyre fitter with vibration injuries Read More
  • £105,000 for injured worker rejected by 33 law firms Read More
  • £25,000 for injured shopper failed by national firm Irwin Mitchell Read More
  • £5.7m settlement for serious injury victim rejected by two national law firms Read More
  • £45,000 for dental negligence victim rejected by two previous firms Read More
  • £215,000 for business interruption losses (client advised by previous firm to accept £50,000) Read More

The highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, has ruled that a Claimant who was originally paid out £135,000 by insurance company Zurich should have his compensation reduced to £14,720, which means he will have to pay back the difference to Zurich.

 

Previously the second highest court, being the Court of Appeal, had ruled the original settlement should stand, even though Zurich had uncovered evidence the Claimant was fraudulent, which they allege they were unaware of when they originally entered settlement.

 

The case is that of Hayward v Zurich and the original settlement of £135,000 followed what appeared to be a serious back injury caused by Zurich’s insured client.  However, in the years following his settlement Mr Hayward’s neighbours submitted evidence to Zurich which proved he was not as badly injured as he had stated he was at the time of the settlement.  In fact, his injuries appeared to be nowhere near as bad as he had previously claimed, hence why the Supreme Court reduced his compensation to £14,720.

 

The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, which means all of the judges agreed, and sends a clear message to fraudulent claimants in that any matter could be revisited even years after settlement if the evidence suggests they were dishonest at the time of settlement.

 

As a solicitor who represents mostly claimants I in fact welcome this decision.  Contrary to what insurance companies may allege, the vast majority of claimant solicitors are keen to tackle fraudulent claims as they damage the reputation of the profession and cause difficulties for genuinely injured people.

 

By James Winterbottom, Solicitor

 

If you would like to know more please contact us on 0161 399 1231 or info@astonknightsolicitors.co.uk

Get Free Legal Advice

Aston knight difference

The Aston Knight Difference

Learn more

Road Traffic Accident

Learn more

Medical Negligence

Learn more

Serious Injury

Learn more

Injury at Work

Learn more

Dental Negligence

Learn more

Privacy Policy | Contact | Complaints Policy

Copyright 2025 Aston Knight Solicitors

Join the team
close slider

Join the team

Would you like to join the team at Aston Knight Solicitors? Work at one of the leading firms of solicitors in Bury, Manchester?  Then click below to find out more and what we currently have available.