P v H: tinnitus, credibility and expert scrutiny
The Claimant pursued a personal injury claim pleaded at up to £17,000, for the injuries allegedly caused by a road traffic accident on 24 November 2020. While breach of duty was admitted, causation was disputed throughout. The Claimant alleged a wide range of injuries, including to the neck, shoulders, and spine, as well as headaches, pins and needles, and tinnitus.
Proceedings were also issued by the Claimant’s wife, although her claim was discontinued ahead of trial.
From the outset, the tinnitus claim presented significant difficulties. The collision involved only minor rear-end damage, barely visible and insufficient to generate the level of occupant movement alleged. The Claimant had not attended his GP in respect of the accident at all, despite a history of chronic back problems. His explanation was that he had been unable to secure an appointment during the pandemic - an assertion undermined by the fact that his wife, registered at the same surgery, had obtained one.
The Claimant alleged unilateral tinnitus. That presentation is unusual following a road traffic accident and is widely recognised as a red flag in causation analysis. DWF raised Part 35 questions of the Claimant’s expert and obtained a desktop report from an ENT (Ear, Nose and Throat) expert, with a view to properly testing the medical evidence.
When that report was received, it was helpful to the Defendant. In addition to confirming the rarity of traumatic unilateral tinnitus, the expert highlighted several inconsistencies within the Claimant’s account and medical history. The Claimant had been involved in multiple road traffic accidents in the late 1990s and had a significant history of unexplained neurological symptoms, including severe headaches that he believed were caused by viral encephalitis—a diagnosis not supported by his treating clinicians.
An accident in December 2004 had led to audiology testing, which revealed high frequency hearing loss. In 2018, the Claimant was diagnosed with hypertension, another recognised risk factor for tinnitus-like symptoms. These issues had not been adequately addressed in the Claimant’s medical evidence.
There was also criticism of the quality of the Claimant’s expert report. It lacked an audiogram, described by the Defendant’s expert as “startling”. Pre existing left sided hearing loss was identified as a strong adverse factor in linking any tinnitus to the index accident. Even the Claimant’s own expert accepted that unilateral tinnitus would ordinarily make a patient seek prompt medical attention—something they had not done. Further inconsistencies arose around sleep disturbance and symptom chronology.
Given the strength of the evidence, DWF successfully applied for permission to rely on the Defendant’s expert report and vacate the trial listed. The court granted the application. Directions were given for further questions and a discussion between the experts, and the trial was vacated and re listed with a two daytime estimate.
Following expert discussions, a joint report was produced. The Defendant’s expert maintained that no tinnitus had been caused by the accident, while the Claimant’s expert reduced the severity of the tinnitus from “mild” to “slight”. By the time of trial, the second Claimant had discontinued. DWF invited the court to dismiss the claim in its entirety and to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty. District Judge Rees, noting that the Claimant was a senior civil servant, scrutinised his evidence carefully.
The court identified several inaccuracies, including the Claimant’s assertion that tinnitus had developed within hours of the accident, despite its absence from the Claim Notification Form served days later. When questioned about treatment, the Claimant’s answers deteriorated further, with the judge concluding that he was fabricating elements of his account. The claim was found to be dishonest and was dismissed in full, with no award made.
The Defendant was awarded indemnity costs of almost £16,000, having made a protective Part 36 offer. The case underlined the critical role of medical records and expert evidence —particularly considering Griffiths v TUI — in successfully challenging claims of this nature.
T v W: prior history and social media evidence
The second case shared several similarities. Again, the Claimant alleged unilateral tinnitus following a road traffic accident, and again breach of duty was admitted while causation was disputed.
The accident occurred on 1 May 2020, at the height of the first Covid 19 lockdown. The claim initially proceeded in the MOJ Portal, with Part 8B proceedings issued for a stay before being transferred into Part 7 when it became clear that the matter was unsuitable for the low value process. The Claimant alleged injuries to the neck, shoulder and chest, along with tinnitus developing within two days of the incident. Despite working as a personal trainer, he took no time off work, although he claimed his own exercise regime was “restricted”. This didn’t fit from the outset.
An ENT report was obtained six months post accident. The collision was a side impact rather than a rear shunt, making unilateral tinnitus marginally more plausible, although the alleged mechanism remained inconsistent: the Claimant said he struck the headrest.
Crucially, the Claimant told the expert he had no previous ENT issues. His medical records told a different story. In 2011, he had experienced tinnitus lasting 11 months, described as constant ringing, and had undergone an MRI scan.
Although an audiogram was conducted, the results raised concerns. There was a significant drop in high frequency hearing in the left ear, which the expert described as “normal” but did not analyse further. Hearing loss was ruled out as accident related without explanation, and the expert did not clearly identify whether the alleged tinnitus arose from whiplash or head trauma.
Further investigation revealed that the Claimant trained professional boxers and appeared to have participated in boxing himself, another potential causative factor. Social media evidence also contradicted claims about limited activity and exposure to loud environments. A robust Defence was served, reserving the right to obtain independent expert evidence. Despite this, a 10 minute disposal hearing was listed—a decision promptly challenged by DWF. The judgment was set aside, the case transferred, and proper directions agreed.
Part 35 and Part 18 questions exposed further inconsistencies. The Claimant initially denied any boxing activity, later reversing that position. He denied attending live music events, despite social media evidence to the contrary. GP records five days post accident made no reference to tinnitus, and no further attendances were recorded.
At trial, District Judge Gourley at Liverpool County Court found the Claimant to be fundamentally dishonest. The decisive factor was the failure to disclose the prolonged episode of tinnitus in 2011, something the court held he could not reasonably have forgotten. By denying it to the medical expert, he had deliberately misled the court.
The claim was struck out in its entirety. The Defendant recovered costs of just over £7,800, alongside a saving of at least £20,000 in damages plus Claimant costs.
