Doggy Daycare Owner Loses £400,000 Claim After Surveillance Footage Exposes Exaggerated Injury

Hazel Boyd, who operates a doggy daycare business, has lost her substantial legal claim following injury in a horse-riding accident, after surveillance footage contradicted her statements about the severity of her injuries. Boyd initially sought damages exceeding £400,000 from racehorse trainer Debbie Hughes, alleging her fall was caused by a "dangerous" horse named Foxy and that it significantly impaired the function of her right arm.

Ms Boyd claimed that the incident, which occurred in June 2020 while riding Foxy, resulted in serious injury—a combination of severe fracture and elbow dislocation—thereby ending her potential career in horse riding. She stated these injuries prevented her from performing daily activities, including some as simple as lifting a shopping bag, ultimately leading her to claim compensation for lost income and future earnings.

However, her claims were contested vigorously. Defence lawyers representing Debbie Hughes argued that publicly available social media posts and secretly recorded surveillance footage disproved Boyd's accounts of severe impairment. These images depicted Boyd walking multiple dogs—including a sizable, powerful husky—in circumstances she claimed were untenable due to her alleged disability. Further footage presented at court also showed her actively participating in football and rugby training sessions.

When confronted with this evidence in court, Ms Boyd denied manipulating the truth, arguing she was merely training and not engaging in full-contact sport. She also maintained that walking a husky did not equate to significant arm strain, insisting that such activity was within her reduced capacity.

The judge, Mr Justice Cotter, dismissed Boyd's case, finding insufficient evidence that the horse had acted dangerously or unusually in response to any perceived threat—a requirement under the Animals Act 1971 for liability to be attributed to the animal’s owner. He emphasized that thoroughbred horses regularly "shy" or "jink," and that such behavior alone does not qualify the horse as dangerous.

Although Boyd was found to have exaggerated her injury deliberately during consultations with medical experts and within the legal proceedings, the judge stopped short of labeling her conduct as "fundamentally dishonest." By avoiding a determination of fundamental dishonesty, Ms Boyd escaped the potentially heavy burden of paying the other side's significant legal costs.

In summation, despite having been candid prior to discovering she was being observed, Ms Boyd inflated the severity of her symptoms substantially enough to cause concern. While the High Court judge concluded her claim ultimately failed, he allowed her to leave without bearing responsibility for the costly legal expenses she had accumulated during the case.