A motorcyclist who falsely claimed debilitating injuries after a crash has had his £5 million compensation claim thrown out by a High Court judge, who branded him an 'unembarrassed liar.' Grant Greening-Steer, 51, from New Milton, Hampshire, sued a driver and his insurer after a car pulled out in front of his Yamaha motorbike in June 2019.
The Accident and Initial Claims
Mr Greening-Steer suffered a fractured spine and a traumatic brain injury in the collision. He asserted that these injuries prevented him from working, necessitated the use of a mobility scooter, and made it difficult for him to tie his shoelaces and fasten buttons. His compensation claim included £1.8 million for lifetime care and assistance, £116,176 for holidays, and £160,655 to pay someone to walk his dog for an hour each day. The total damages bill amounted to £4,924,418.
Surveillance Exposes Exaggerations
However, the defence team for the driver and insurer presented surveillance footage that painted a different picture. The footage showed Mr Greening-Steer driving to a petrol station, filling up his Aston Martin, and walking normally. Despite claiming he struggled with long drives, he was seen travelling 55 miles after the investigators lost sight of him. Medical records also suggested he had made a reasonable recovery a year after the crash and was capable of returning to work and operating a forklift truck.
Judge's Verdict
Mr Justice Ritchie, presiding over the case at the High Court on May 22, dismissed the claim after finding Mr Greening-Steer to be a 'regular, detailed, unembarrassed liar, with the aim of gaining higher damages than he is honestly entitled to.' The judge identified 15 'areas of untruth' encompassing mobility, pain, and ability to work. He noted that the claimant was able-bodied enough to 'walk his dogs, mend and build kit cars, bend and carry moderate weights and drive manual shift vans and powerful sports cars.'
Had Mr Greening-Steer been honest, he would have been entitled to £378,420 in damages. However, due to his dishonesty, he received nothing. The judge concluded: 'That conduct has deprived him of a substantial sum in damages to which he would otherwise have been entitled.'
