UK Insurance Limited v Mr. Bahader Hassankhail [2026] EWHC 1020 (KB)
Overview
The High Court judgment in this matter handed down on 1 May 2026 highlights the growing sophistication of fraud risks in high-value personal injury claims and the possible avenues of recourse available to insurers seeking to challenge settlements allegedly obtained dishonestly.
The case centres on a £2.5 million settlement approved in 2022, which UK Insurance Limited (UKIL) now seeks to overturn on grounds of fraud. Whilst this interim judgment does not deal with the final issue of fraud and recovery of the settlement, it does provide invaluable insight into disclosure and the iniquity exception. Further, it offers important insights into evidential strategy and the increasing judicial willingness to scrutinise claimant conduct post-settlement.
The facts
The underlying claim involved a 2016 road traffic accident resulting in Mr. Hassankhail sustaining a traumatic brain injury. Liability was admitted, and the claim proceeded on quantum only, with the claimant asserting significant cognitive impairment and lack of capacity. A settlement of £2.5 million was approved by the High Court in June 2022.
However, following settlement UKIL obtained further evidence suggesting the claim was fundamentally dishonest. This was based on allegations of Mr. Hassankhail misrepresenting his use of drugs and his lack of mental capacity, together with alleged reliance on false witness evidence. UKIL subsequently brought proceedings to set aside the settlement for fraud and recover damages paid.
The High Court decision
At this stage, the High Court (Master Šabić KC) was concerned with applications for disclosure, including attempts to obtain documents that would ordinarily be protected by legal professional privilege.
The court’s key findings were:
- A prima facie case of fraud had been established. The court held that UKIL had demonstrated a strong prima facie case of fraud across the pleaded areas, sufficient to justify further investigation. This was based on
- Systematic dishonesty by Mr. Hassankhail to medical experts regarding drug use, despite extensive evidence of frequent use.
- Evidence that Mr. Hassankhail may have misrepresented incapacity to support higher damages claim.
- Indications that false witness evidence may have been knowingly procured and deployed.
- As a result of the prima facie fraud case, the court permitted reliance on the iniquity exception, which disapplies privilege where communications are in furtherance of fraud or dishonesty.
- The court ordered wide-ranging disclosure, including categories such as medical records, financial documents, and potentially privileged materials falling within the exception.
- The judgment also addressed issues of collateral waiver, including the implications of reliance on certain material (and even the late emergence of a pre-settlement email) for wider disclosure obligations
Conclusions
Even though the crucial issue of fraud is yet to be determined by the court, this judgment reinforces the message that even late-stage or court-approved settlements carry residual risk where evidence is incomplete, or credibility concerns remain unresolved. Preservation of evidence post-settlement and monitoring claims where risk indicators exist are necessary.
This case also reflects a broader trend: courts are increasingly prepared to interrogate the integrity of high-value personal injury claims at a granular level, even after settlement. For insurers, the message is clear: robust evidential strategies, early fraud detection, and a willingness to challenge suspicious claims remain critical to controlling indemnity spend in the current market.
