Judge hits out at ‘unembarrassed liar’ over £5million bike crash compensation claim

A “dishonest” engineer who claimed he needed a mobility scooter and struggled to tie his shoelaces after crashing his motorbike has had his “dishonest” £5m compensation claim rejected after a judge found he was a “shameless liar”.

Grant Greening-Steer, 51, sued for £5 million (including £160,000 for walking someone’s dog every day) after he had a serious accident on his bike in June 2019.

He fractured his spine when a car collided with his Yamaha motorcycle near his home in New Milton, Hampshire, and the impact also caused a “moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.”

Last month, the driver sued his insurers for almost £5 million over injuries he said left him unable to work, sometimes needing a mobility scooter and struggling with “laces and buttons”.

But the driver’s lawyers and insurers have released secretly taken footage which they say shows Mr Greening-Steer walking normally and proves he was in fact a “faker” and “deliberately lied” about his symptoms and claimed millions of dollars.

In the Supreme Court today, Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed Mr Greening-Steer’s claim after finding that Mr Greening-Steer was “an honest, verbose, shameless liar who sought to obtain more compensation than he honestly deserved”.

Far from being unable to perform daily tasks and requiring extensive assistance, he was able to work, repair and drive a car, and walk his own dog.

He said Mr Greening-Steer’s claim was actually worth £378,420, a fraction of what he claimed, but he would get nothing because he had been dishonest about exaggerating his injuries.

In his case, Mr Greening-Steer had complained of a series of ongoing disabilities, including standing problems and “altered gait with dragging of the left leg, slugging of the right leg and lack of swinging of the arm”.

He claimed he needed a standard, off-road mobility scooter to help him get around, as well as sometimes needing walking poles and a cane to help cope with his “limited walking distance”.

In court documents, she described having difficulty getting in and out of the bathroom, difficulty carrying items without spilling them, and a general “debilitating fatigue.”

He was running a refrigerated trailer business at the time of the accident, but claimed the effects of his injuries ultimately made it impossible to work.

Despite trying to return to work, he claimed he “realized he couldn’t deal with it anymore”, claiming he was now unlikely to return to work.

His injuries have also resulted in “decreased dexterity” and he “struggles with buttons and laces”.

“The main challenges are physical disability, decreased balance, pain, fatigue, cognitive blindness, urinary incontinence, and emotional dysregulation,” he explained.

The total amount he claimed in compensation included individual claims such as £1.8 million for lifetime care and assistance, £116,176 for holidays and £160,655 paid to someone to walk his dog for an hour each day.

At the start of the case last month, Charles Woodhouse KC, on behalf of driver Derek Ainge and his insurers, acknowledged the seriousness of the crash, which caused extensive physical damage, including a fractured spine as well as a fracture to the lower back and injuries to the left shoulder and hip.

But he said security footage proved Mr Greening-Steer had so far “made a reasonable functional recovery” and was exaggerating his symptoms.

He showed court footage of Mr Greening-Steeer driving to a petrol station and filling up, and claimed he “walked with a normal gait and a normal arm wave” as he walked to and from the car.

Shortly afterwards, the engineer, who claimed to have difficulty driving long distances, got back into his two-seater Aston Martin and set off on the motorway, traveling 55 miles before pursuing investigators allegedly lost sight of him.

The court heard Mr Greening-Steer submitted a compensation bill of £4,924,418, although some of his needs still need to be determined, but defense KC argued his claim was of far less value and should be dismissed outright because of his lies.

“It is submitted that the surveillance evidence clearly contradicts Mr Greening-Steer’s account of his disability and its impact on his daily activities and ability to work,” he added.

“His dishonesty was present from the beginning of his claim and throughout its entire course.”

Mr Woodhouse said neurosurgeons who examined the refrigeration engineer and evaluated the surveillance video concluded that his symptoms had been exaggerated, quoting a doctor who said: “Conscious exaggeration is clearly depicted… I am of the view that he was faking it to increase the value of his claim.”

KC highlighted medical records that suggested he made a “reasonable recovery” within the first year after the accident and was able to return to part-time work, including driving a forklift, despite “ongoing symptoms”.

In the witness box, Mr Greening-Steer agreed to tell the doctor examining him in 2024 that he “couldn’t go out in windy weather for fear of tipping over” and explained that he was vulnerable to wind because he lived on top of a cliff.

He also agreed to tell the doctor that he could not walk more than 100 meters without experiencing fatigue and a burning sensation in his leg.

“If I sit for a long time, my left foot becomes stiff, if I stand for a long time, my leg spasms,” he explained.

“I can walk a little further now, maybe 150 meters. That was back then.”

Giving his verdict today, Mr Justice Ritchie said the content of the images, combined with Mr Greening-Steer’s behavior in the witness box, led him to conclude that he was a “malinger”.

“He made a conspicuous effort in the witness box not to use his left arm or hand at all, and on two occasions demonstrated how difficult it was for him to open his clenched left hand,” he said.

“It took more than 10 seconds and the fingers never straightened.

“Comparing this behavior to the normal, free use of his left hand in the surveillance videos was part of the evidence that convinced me that he was faking it.

“When I compared his evidence with the documents and the reports of medical experts, I concluded that the plaintiff was a methodical, detailed, shameless liar who sought to obtain more compensation than he honestly deserved.

“The main areas of impairment are: mobility, pain, spasms, strength, ability to drive, concentration, memory, fatigue, urge to urinate, ability to work, sexual function, smell and taste, balance, pain, and foot drop.

“I think the plaintiff knew very well that he had recovered well as of mid-2021. He was able to walk moderate distances safely at a normal gait, drive manual pickups up to at least 200 miles in a day, drive very powerful sports cars, perform mechanical work on and drive beach buggies and kit cars, go on boat trips in salt water, and perform some moderate effort manual work, including driving forklifts and box trucks.” and housework, cooking, shopping, and administrative paperwork.

“I think probably from mid-2021 onwards he made a disability presentation that he knew was worse than his actual physical disabilities and claimed a grossly exaggerated level of cognitive dysfunction.

“I consider that the plaintiff ran his own business part-time, drove the factory van, visited customers and did what he could to contribute.

“In my view, objectively, the claimant’s presentation of disability and disability and his behavior before medico-legal experts, his case manager and many treatment professionals, and his reports to the DWP were not accurate, and he knew they were accurate.

“His inability to open his left hand on the field was one such fake.

“I find that the plaintiff has had almost full-time capacity to work since mid-2021. Fatigue is only slightly limited by a slight weakness in the left leg and mild pain in the right leg.

“I believe plaintiff’s left shoulder function is near normal. He has minor neurological weakness in his left arm, but not enough to interfere with normal activities of daily living, such as grasping, carrying, driving, lifting and pushing. There is no drop in his left foot.

“He can walk his dogs, repair and build kit cars, bend and haul medium weights, and drive manual transmission pickup trucks and powerful sports cars.

“I think objectively that the man on the Clapham bus and the woman on the Sheffield tram would have considered the plaintiff’s grossly exaggerated presentation of his level of disability to be dishonest, having regard to the facts known to him.

“In my view the plaintiff’s dishonesty was fundamental to the claim. It was not minor, incidental or incidental. It grossly inflated the damages under each head of loss and created large, dishonest losses.

“It lasted for many years and affected both the plaintiff’s presentation of his claim and the defendant’s defense.”

The judge said that without Mr Greening-Steer’s fraud he would have been entitled to compensation of £378,420 for his genuine injuries, but for lying so blatantly he would have received nothing.

He concluded: “It is disappointing to learn that a man so seriously injured by the tort of another was fundamentally dishonest about the consequences of his injuries, with the intention of defrauding the defendant’s insurance company.

“This conduct deprived him of significant compensation to which he would otherwise have been entitled.”