The Supreme Court held that, with the intention of provoking fraud, it is very difficult to rebut the presumption that the innocent party was in fact induced. Lord Clarke pointed out that the authorities do not entirely agree on what is necessary to rebut the presumption (which is more a sequence of facts than a presumption of law) – whether it is necessary to prove that the misrepresentation played “no role at all” or played no “decisive role” or did not play a real and essential role. However, there was no need to resolve the case, as the presumption was clearly not rebutted on the facts of this case; on the judge`s factual findings, it was clear that the insurer, had it been aware of the actual position, would not have accepted the transaction it had made. The Supreme Court held that it was not necessary for Zurich to believe the truth of Mr. Hayward`s story in order to prove his dependence for the purposes of misrepresentation. On the contrary, it was enough for Mr. Hayward`s story to push Zurich to conclude the transaction agreement. Zurich believed that Mr. Hayward was lying about the extent of his injuries, but was concerned that a court would not see him that way and therefore filed a complaint to reduce the risk that Mr. Hayward`s story would be believed in court. Zurich had therefore relied on Mr. Hayward`s story to his detriment. Mr.
Hayward sought summary judgment and/or strike on the grounds that the Tomlin Order had created an Estoppel to prevent the opening of this proceeding and/or that the remedy was an abuse of process because the issue of fraud had been compromised.  Deputy District Judge Bosman refused to quash it, but was set aside on appeal by Yelton J. However, the Decision of the Assistant District Judge was reinstated after Zurich`s appeal to the Court of Appeal.  In July, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Hayward/Zurich Insurance Company Plc. This was an appeal that verified when it was possible to recover funds paid during the settlement of a claim in cases where the paying party strongly suspected that the beneficiary had acted fraudulently at the time of payment, but nevertheless accepted the transaction. The Supreme Court stated that, in order to successfully prove the deception, the paying party does not have to believe that the receiving party`s statements were true at the time of the agreement; All he has to do is show that the misrepresentations have caused him to calm down. As a result of our ongoing and diligent efforts to speak to third parties and directly with the opposing counsel of the accused, we were able to obtain favourable comparisons against the accused.