Ex-soldier who sued MOD for more than £1.5m ruled as 'dishonest'

A former soldier who sued the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for more than £1.5m after complaining that exposure to wet and cold conditions made walking difficult was "clearly dishonest", a High Court judge has ruled.

Mr Justice Eyre has concluded that "dishonesty tainted" Michael Mantey's damages claim.

He said Mr Mantey, 39, suffered a "minor" non-freezing cold injury, but "dishonestly portrayed himself as having suffered a more serious injury which had a continuing and disabling effect".

'For financial gain'

The judge said Mr Mantey did that "for financial gain".

He has outlined his conclusions in a written ruling published on Wednesday after considering competing arguments from lawyers representing Mr Mantey and the Ministry of Defence at a recent High Court hearing in London.

Mr Mantey, who was born in Ghana, enlisted in the British Army in 2009, said the judge.

In 2017, he had been serving with the 26 Engineer Regiment and was deployed to Estonia.

He had been evacuated back to the UK on the basis of having suffered a non-freezing cold injury – and medically discharged from the Army in 2020.

Mr Mantey had alleged negligence and said he was suffering "sundry continuing disabling symptoms".

The judge said Mr Mantey had discontinued his claim after the MOD disclosed "video-recorded surveillance evidence" which was said to be "inconsistent with the alleged symptoms".

'Fundamentally dishonest'

The footage, taken in September 2021, "showed discrepancies" between Mr Mantey's actions "before and after a medical examination", said the judge.

The MOD argued that there was "deliberate malingering".

Mr Mantey denied that allegation and said his presentation at an examination was "genuine".

He said the "greater activity" shown in surveillance footage was "atypical" and the "result of his medication" and of “support and encouragement” from a neighbour.

Mr Justice Eyre said he had to decide whether the explanation for "the discrepancy" was a "deliberately false presentation", whether there was "dishonesty" on the part of Mr Mantey and whether such dishonesty meant that the claim was "fundamentally dishonest".

He concluded that Mr Mantey's claim had been "fundamentally dishonest".

'Dishonesty tainted the whole of the claim'

The judge said: "I find on the balance of probabilities that the claimant suffered a minor... injury from which he had fully recovered at some point before September 2021.

"The claimant dishonestly portrayed himself as having suffered a more serious injury which had a continuing and disabling effect doing so for financial gain."

He added: "That dishonesty tainted the whole of the claim."

The judge went on: "Putting it shortly, there was dishonesty as to a central feature of the case namely the extent and continuing effect of the Claimant's injuries.

"This would have the effect of substantially increasing the value of the claim over the value of any properly tenable claim and pervaded the presentation of the case from at the latest early September 2021 onwards. In those circumstances I find the claim to be fundamentally dishonest."

Mr Mantey said he had struggled with "poor balance" due to pain in his feet and legs and could not "walk for long distances", often felt "low", was "unable to drive long distances", and found it "difficult to concentrate for longer periods of time" due to the "amount of pain" he was in.

The judge said surveillance footage showed Mr Mantey walking with a "normal gait without limping and without using either a stick or a crutch", "carrying a garden parasol", and "subsequently wheeling a concrete parasol base – bending his back at about 90 degrees to do so".