A scaffolder who claimed to be a disabled ‘recluse’ after a fall at work has been left without a penny’s compensation after Facebook posts showed him playing football with a dog and stepping into a nightclub scrap.
Leroy Baker, 51, from Erith, Kent, sued for over £150,000 saying multiple fractures suffered in a 30-foot fall at work in 2013 had left him isolated, plagued by pain and struggling with mobility.
But lawyers for building company Pellikaan Construction Ltd pointed out that his Facebook profile variously showed he was able to ‘sit astride a motorbike, play football with a dog, go swimming and snorkelling, go on a foreign holiday, and become involved in a nightclub confrontation’.
Leroy Baker, 51, from Erith, Kent, sued for over £150,000 after he suffered injuries from a 30ft fall at work
Mr Baker was genuinely injured, suffering multiple fractures when he fell 30 feet from scaffolding in November 2013 while working on a site in Greenwich
Now Judge Stephen Hellmann has found that, although he was genuinely injured, the social media posts proved Mr Baker had exaggerated the impact of the accident on him.
He rejected his entire damages claim because most had been for the cost of future care, which the judge said was ‘fraudulent’ and ‘dishonest.’
Central London County Court heard that Mr Baker was genuinely injured, suffering multiple fractures when he fell 30 feet from scaffolding in November 2013 while working on a site in Greenwich.
He fractured his back, ribs and pelvis, and sustained other acute injuries, needing extensive medical treatment.
In a 2018 witness statement, he said his injuries had left him ‘a recluse or very isolated,’ and crippled by pain.
Lawyers for the building company admitted 25 per cent liability for the accident, saying he might have avoided the fall had he been clipped into a safety harness.
The scaffolder’s Facebook photos showed him enjoying an active life of holidays, snorkelling and playing football
Mr Baker initially brought a six-figure claim, including £130,000 for the cost of future care, but dropped his total claim to £25,000 by the time the trial began.
However Adam Taylor, for Pellikan Construction, asked the judge to throw out his entire damages bid because of his ‘dishonesty’ in exaggerating the long-term effects of the accident.
And he highlighted Facebook posts between 2013 and 2018, which he said flatly contradicted the image of a man struggling to recover from his injuries.
His profile showed he was able to sit on a motorbike, play football with a dog, go swimming and snorkelling, go on a foreign holiday, and become involved in a ‘nightclub confrontation’, contradicting his case that the accident left him ‘a recluse’, Mr Taylor said.
‘He has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the exaggeration of his symptoms and their effect on his daily life,’ the barrister argued.
In the witness box, Mr Baker denied exaggerating his symptoms to boost his cash claim, saying that he was initially reclusive after the accident but gradually became more outgoing.
Mr Baker denied exaggerating his symptoms to boost his cash claim, saying that he was initially reclusive after the accident
Now working as a cleaner, he said he had not been fighting in the nightclub, but had been one of a group of people who had helped to break up a dancefloor tussle between a man from London and a Scottish reveller who ‘wouldn’t shut up.’
Judge Hellmann accepted the case presented a complex picture due to Mr Baker’s physical and psychological improvement since the accident.
He said some of Mr Baker’s complaints were backed by medical evidence but found that, in the 2018 witness statement, he had ‘exaggerated the effects of his injuries on his daily life’.
Nor had he stated the true position in a later witness statement in February 2019, the judge said, adding: ‘I am satisfied that a substantial part of his exaggeration was in order to increase the value of his claim.’
‘I accept that to some extent his Facebook entries were an attempt to put on a brave face to the world, but I am also satisfied that his Facebook entries demonstrate that he had not become a recluse,’ he found.
He went on to reject his entire bid for damages, because Mr Baker pursued the baseless six-figure ‘future care’ claim until shortly before the trial.
‘I find that the claim for future care was dishonest because he did not use his witness statement of February 2019 to correct it although he knew it was no longer sustainable,’ he said.
‘I am satisfied that there are no special circumstances applying to the case which should cause me not to apply the usual consequences for a fraudulent claim.
‘For that reason I find his claim was fraudulently dishonest and it is therefore dismissed.’