Mustard v. Flower & Flower & Direct Line Group – 11.10.2019

11th October 2019

Practice Areas

Personal Injury

Cases Citation

[2019] EWHC 2623 (QB)

Judicial ruling on admissibility of covert recordings in injury claims.

Marcus Grant, instructed by Dickinson Solicitors, represented a Claimant in the High Court who was permitted to rely on such recordings.

Master Davison handed down a detailed judgment on the admissibility of covert recordings, including recording of neuropsychological testing in a head injury case.

The Claimant recorded her appointments with all six of the Defendant’s experts, four overtly and two covertly. She was asked to stop the recording of the neuropsychological appointment part way through the neuropsychological testing, attempted to do so but, in fact, failed to do so.

The Claimant’s neuropsychologist reviewed the recording of the Defendant’s neuropsychological appointment and observed significant deviations from correct procedure and was critical of her technique and methodology. The Defendant’s neuropsychologist relied in part on her test scores in reaching her formulation that characterised the Claimant in terms that stopped just short of an allegation of outright dishonesty.

The Defendant accepted that all six recordings were relevant and probative to issues in the case in that they raised legitimate questions of the experts, but nevertheless asked the Court to refuse the Claimant permission to rely on them because they were illegal because they breached the GDPR and the DPA 2018, because they were unfair as the Claimant had not recorded her own experts and because they were discourteous to the experts. One expert reported that she felt “professionally violated, distressed, angry and disillusioned” by the recording.

The Court rejected the Defendant’s submissions, finding that the recordings were not unlawful, that they did not breach the GDPR or the DPA 2018 and that the Overriding Objective clearly favoured admitting the recordings into evidence, subject to providing safeguards that the recording of the proprietary test materials of the neuropsychological testing did not enter the public domain.

The Court found that the Claimant’s motives for wanting to record the Defendants’ appointments were “in the context of adversarial litigation, understandable” and found that “ Whilst her actions lacked courtesy and transparency, covert recording had become a fact of professional life”.

The Court picked up on, and commended to the legal profession, a suggestion from Claimant’s Counsel in submissions:

“the sooner that there can be some kind of protocol agreed between the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Forum of Insurance Lawyers which governs the recording of medico-legal examinations the better.  It is the interests of all sides that examinations are recorded because from time to time significant disputes arise as to what occurred”

The Court was critical of a series of Part 35 Questions asked of the Defendant’s experts on the grounds that they were disproportionate and overwhelmingly not for the purposes of clarification and amounted to cross-examination.

Mustard v Flower Ors – Master Davison’s approved judgment – 11.10.19

Related Barristers

Marcus Grant

Marcus Grant
Year of Call: 1993

Close X

Coronavirus Update

TGC continues proactively to safeguard against the risks posed by the spread of Coronavirus. We have a Covid-19 Committee who continue to monitor the situation and follow advice issued by the Government and Public Health England. We will be updating this page as and when new information becomes available. As of 6 July 2020, our London premises, 1 Harcourt Buildings, will be operating with a reduced clerking team in attendance. The remaining staff members and barristers will continue working remotely. We wish to reassure everyone that our contingency plans enable us to continue to provide our services.

Telephoning us

When calling our switchboard number, it will be diverted to a member of the clerking team who will be able to assist in the usual way. All direct dials in Chambers are diverted to be answered remotely.

Emailing us & Sending Instructions

Please send all instructions via email directly to We would be grateful if this could be sent in an orderly fashion to enable working from a screen manageable. We are able to receive hard copy instructions via DX or Post, if necessary. However, we have a preference for electronic documents wherever possible.

Please continue to communicate with barristers directly via phone or email.

Conferences, Joint Settlement Meetings & Mediations

Conferences, meetings and mediations will take place remotely, either by telephone or video until further notice. Group Telephone calls and video calls can be easily arranged. If an in-person meeting is felt necessary please see our Covid-19 Information page for full criteria.

Court Hearings

We are following the Government’s advice closely, which is changing daily. In keeping with that advice, we will continue to service hearings remotely, where possible and as instructed by the hosting Court. In-Person hearings will be accommodated by members of TGC. We will continue to monitor this situation.

Making a payment

If you do not already pay us by BACS, going forward please make arrangements to do so. Please contact the clerks who can supply you with the relevant BACS details.

If you wish to discuss our policy and procedure relating to coronavirus, please do not hesitate to contact our senior clerk Dean Norton on 07535 753098 or

To learn more visit our Covid-19 Information page.