Woman loses £400k injury claim after being filmed walking ‘strong’ husky

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world

Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email

Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

A doggy daycare boss who sued for over £400,000 after injuring her arm in a fall from a horse has lost her case after being videoed holding a "big, strong" husky tugging at the lead and playing sports.

Hazel Boyd was guilty of "dishonest exaggeration" of the problems her injured arm caused her, a judge has found, after secretly-shot film showed her taking part in football and rugby games, as well as walking muscular dogs with her bad arm.

Ms Boyd was riding out a three-year-old thoroughbred named "Foxy" whilst working as a stable hand for Welsh racehorse trainer Debbie Hughes in June 2020 when she said the horse "spooked" and threw her to the ground.

She sued the trainer, of Ty'r Heol Farm, Pantybrad, Tonyrefail, Porth, claiming the horse was a "dangerous" animal and that the accident left her with a disabled right arm after a bad break and dislocation of the elbow.

She said her riding career was ruined as a result of the fall and claimed up to £368,000 in lost earnings, as well as other damages, despite having since set up a "doggy daycare" business.

But she faced accusations of "fundamental dishonesty" in relation to her damages bid, with the racehorse trainer claiming social media posts and surveillance footage proved that she exaggerated her disability and was in fact "a rugby-playing, football-playing goalkeeper, who is quite able".

Dismissing her claim at London's High Court today, Mr Justice Cotter said Ms Boyd had failed in her claim under the Animals Act 1971 because she had not provided convincing evidence that the horse she was riding "jinked" because it was scared.

He went on to find that she had "deliberately overplayed her symptoms and level of disability" during appointments with medical experts, but added that her actions were not so bad as to qualify as "fundamental dishonesty" which would have seen her handed the massive court bill for the case.

Giving evidence at London's High Court, Ms Boyd had denied that being videoed taking a husky for a walk whilst holding the "large" animal's lead with her "bad" arm proved she was exaggerating the impact of her injuries.

Georgina Crawford, for Mrs Hughes, told Mr Justice Cotter that secretly-shot surveillance footage shows her on various days walking dogs and going to football and rugby training.

open image in gallery

The barrister focused in on a piece of the footage which showed Ms Boyd walking three dogs for 90 minutes, initially her own two smaller dogs before bringing a husky into the mix.

“A husky is a large dog...You are walking a big, strong dog on a lead," the barrister put to her in the witness box.

She replied: “I can't pick a heavy bag of shopping up with that hand. That dog isn't pulling me."

Ms Boyd - formerly a member of the Llantwit Pink Rhinos women's rugby team - was also confronted with footage showing her taking part in training.

She told the court that she had returned to training in late 2020, having been told her injury would improve more if she was fitter.

“It shows me training, not playing rugby. There’s a difference. Training is non-contact, it’s tag," she said.

“You can see me running up and jumping on someone, I’m not tackling them....I haven't misled anyone here."

The judge, ruling on the issue, said: "The claimant deliberately overplayed her symptoms and level of disability."

But he went on: "I have concluded that the effect of the dishonest exaggeration was not sufficiently significant to mean that it went to the root or heart of the claim.

"It was dishonest embellishment in an attempt to underpin an essentially honest claim.

"She voluntarily declared that she tried to retrain as an HGV driver and also returned to playing football and was setting up a dog walking business before she was aware of the surveillance, so has been fully open about running a business that necessarily involves walking dogs and sometimes keeping them on leads.

"The claimant should consider herself fortunate that her conscious exaggeration has not had devastating consequences."

"The defendant has not satisfied the burden of establishing fundamental dishonesty," he added.

Ms Boyd had sued under the Animals Act 1971, claiming the horse was a "dangerous" animal because of its propensity to take fright at a "perceived threat".

But Ms Crawford, for Ms Hughes, told the judge that shying, side-stepping or sharply changing direction is "characteristic behaviour" in thoroughbred racehorses and thus is not "abnormal" behaviour which would make the owner liable under the act.

open image in gallery

Ruling against Ms Boyd on liability, the judge said: "It is the claimant’s case that Foxy was known to shy/jink more easily than other horses

"I accept that the horse had some reason for moving as it did. It did not stumble, it was an intentional side-step.

"Even if it were the case that a horse always moves sideways when cantering if it perceives danger, that does not mean every time a horse moves sideways it perceives danger, as this would ignore the counterexamples which refute the premise e.g. a horse may move sideways because it sees an uneven patch on the ground and wishes to avoid it.

"The horse may have moved simply because he did not like something on the surface of the gallops, such as change of colour. In my view, it is difficult to see how a horse simply avoiding a patch of gallops by 'jinking' around it could be readily considered as it reacting to 'a perceived threat'.

"In this case, the claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence and causative effect of the characteristic relied upon; that the shy/jink/sharp movement to the right was due to Foxy having 'perceived a threat'.

"For the reasons set out above, the claim fails," the judge concluded.

Personal injury claimants enjoy an indemnity against being landed with the legal costs of their claim unless found to be "fundamentally dishonest," so Ms Boyd, despite her "conscious exaggeration," will not be handed the bill for the case.