Patrick Limb QC surveys the case of Zurich v Hayward
In Zurich v Hayward [2011] EWCA Civ 641, [2011] All ER (D) 280 (May), Mr Hayward was injured at work in 1998—the employers’ liability insurers were Zurich. In 2001, he issued proceedings against his employers alleging suffering from continuing physical disabilities on account of significant, spinal injury. The £420,000 schedule of loss substantially comprised of ongoing loss of earnings.
In the light of video evidence obtained, the defendant alleged that the claimant was fit for full-time work, albeit not heavy lifting. Notably, the defence contended: “The claimant has exaggerated his difficulties in recovery and current physical condition for financial gain”.
The orthopaedic surgeons, respectively engaged, produced a joint report. The doctors thought discrepancy between the first video surveillance and Mr Hayward’s description of his symptoms “needed clarification”. They agreed he was fit only for part-time work which did not entail heavy duties.
In August 2002, liability was compromised with 20% off for contributory negligence. In June 2003, the defendant paid £100,000 into court—with
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
