High Court considers whether discontinued cold injury claim against MoD was fundamentally dishonest

A Deputy High Court Judge considered on 30 March 2026 whether a former soldier's discontinued damages claim against the Ministry of Defence was fundamentally dishonest, a question that goes only to costs protection.

In Uchechukwu Atuanya v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 758 (KB), Rory Dunlop KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the King's Bench Division, dealt with a single issue. He had to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether the claimant's claim was fundamentally dishonest within the meaning of CPR 44.16(1). The judgment was handed down on 30 March 2026 after a four-day hearing on 16 to 19 March 2026.

Background

The claimant served in the Grenadier Guards for over 14 years. He had sought damages for a non-freezing cold injury (NFCI), a neurological injury caused by exposure to the cold. The claim has been discontinued, so he can no longer recover damages. The judge said his decision goes only to costs.

Why it matters

If the claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest, he would lose the protection he would otherwise have against a costs order under the rules on qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), CPR 44.13 to 44.17. The Ministry of Defence said it is "plagued" by NFCI claims and asked for the hearing to send a message that it will pursue costs against those who bring dishonest claims. Its counsel accepted that the costs of the hearing might never, in practice, be recovered from the claimant.

The evidence

The neurological experts agreed that the claimant had a mild NFCI from cold exposure in service. After seeing surveillance video, their joint final view was that this injury would in itself have had negligible impact. The judge noted that it did not explain all the symptoms for which damages were sought.

The surveillance covered March 2024. On 8 March the claimant was filmed in warm clothing and gloves at two medical appointments, and was recorded limping. On 9 March, at about 11C, he was filmed in a T-shirt, walking at a good pace and driving. Later that day, at about 13C, he climbed a flight of external steps with ease without holding the rails. At one of the appointments, his grip strength was recorded as 12kg and 3.4kg, against a normal range of 33.5 to 55.3kg.

The judge also recognised that evidence of mental illness complicated the case. He said there can sometimes be an honest psychiatric cause for symptoms with no organic physical cause. He described the most difficult question as whether the claimant had deliberately and dishonestly exaggerated his difficulties to obtain money from the Ministry, or subjectively believed the claims he made.

The claimant represented himself. The judge acknowledged his long service.

Sources

• Uchechukwu Atuanya v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 758 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 30 March 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/758