Woman’s £400K Injury Claim Rejected After Footage Shows Her Playing Rugby

[Social Media]

 

A woman who sought more than £400,000 in compensation for an arm injury has had her claim dismissed after surveillance footage revealed her engaging in sports and handling strong dogs. Hazel Boyd, who runs a dog daycare business, claimed she had suffered a severe arm injury after being thrown from a horse while working as a stablehand. However, a High Court judge ruled that she was guilty of “dishonest exaggeration” after video evidence showed her playing rugby and football, as well as walking a large husky using her supposedly injured arm.  

 

 

Boyd stated that her injury occurred in 2020 when she was thrown from a three-year-old thoroughbred named Foxy while working for trainer Debbie Hughes at Ty’r Heol Farm in Llanelli. She alleged that the horse was dangerous and that the accident left her with a permanently disabled right arm, preventing her from continuing her riding career. Seeking damages, she claimed up to £368,000 in lost earnings, in addition to other compensation, despite having since established a dog daycare business.  

 

 

However, Hughes challenged the claim, arguing that Boyd had significantly exaggerated her disability. Social media posts and surveillance footage were presented in court, revealing Boyd participating in football and rugby training, as well as walking multiple dogs, including a strong husky, for extended periods. “A husky is a large dog,” barrister Georgina Crawford told the court, pointing out that Boyd was using her allegedly disabled arm to control the animal.  

 

The court was also shown images of Boyd playing rugby. Boyd, a former member of the Llantwit Fardre Pink Rhinos women’s rugby team, defended herself by claiming she had only participated in non-contact training to aid her recovery. “It shows me training, not playing rugby. There’s a difference. Training is non-contact; it’s tag,” she stated.  

 

 

Despite her arguments, Mr Justice Cotter ruled against Boyd, stating that she had failed to provide convincing evidence that Foxy had been spooked by a threat, rather than simply reacting to something on the gallop surface. He also found that she had deliberately exaggerated her symptoms and level of disability when consulting medical experts. However, he stopped short of declaring her actions as “fundamental dishonesty,” which would have resulted in her having to cover the defendant’s legal costs.  

 

Although Boyd’s claim was dismissed, personal injury claimants are generally protected from paying the defendant’s legal costs unless they are found to have acted fraudulently. As a result, despite the judge ruling that Boyd had “consciously exaggerated” her condition, she will not face additional financial penalties.

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-03-05

 

 

[Olmate]

Previous life I worked in Melbourne as PI, insurance loss adjuster. This is a common mistake people make when trying to scam Insurers. A simple method we often employed was to discretly deflate a cars tyre on claimants vehicle, usually whilst shopping... then film them changing the tyre.! Worked well in.divorce cases too.❤️

[animalmagic]

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

Previous life I worked in Melbourne as PI, insurance loss adjuster. This is a common mistake people make when trying to scam Insurers. A simple method we often employed was to discretly deflate a cars tyre on claimants vehicle, usually whilst shopping... then film them changing the tyre.! Worked well in.divorce cases too.❤️

Very interesting, could have landed you in jail for 14 days in Victoria!

Deflating tyres could land you 14 days of imprisonment | CarExpert

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

Previous life I worked in Melbourne as PI, insurance loss adjuster. This is a common mistake people make when trying to scam Insurers. A simple method we often employed was to discretly deflate a cars tyre on claimants vehicle, usually whilst shopping... then film them changing the tyre.! Worked well in.divorce cases too.❤️

 

Nice.

 

What happens if they are genuinely injured? Just leave them there? A bit like throwing witches in the river. If they drown, they're innocent.

 

Insurance companies are some of the worst, immoral businesses out there. 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Nice.

 

What happens if they are genuinely injured? Just leave them there? A bit like throwing witches in the river. If they drown, they're innocent.

 

Insurance companies are some of the worst, immoral businesses out there. 

I agree entirely.

 

Though it seems gum-shoeing comes a close second.