The High Court reinstated the part of a personal injury claim that did not concern special damages or loss of earnings, after finding that the claim had been dismissed under an earlier unless order. The court gave consent for those damages claims to be withdrawn and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of the application and their costs of defending the withdrawn claims.
In an ex tempore ruling on 18 May 2023, Mr Justice Mark Heslin refused the plaintiff’s primary request to treat her compliance with the unless order as sufficient. He found she had not provided adequate details or supporting documents for her special damages and earnings claims within the eight-week deadline, which expired on 16 August 2021. The order therefore took effect and the proceedings stood dismissed from 17 August 2021.
The plaintiff’s 2017 claim alleged that she fell while descending steps to a patio at premises in County Carlow on or about 16 January 2016. She alleged negligence, breach of statutory duty and breach of the occupier’s duty of care. Those allegations were not findings in this ruling.
The defendants had requested details and documents for the claimed losses. In 2019, the plaintiff replied that special damages were being vouched and details would follow. In August 2021, she estimated 12 weeks of past lost earnings at €16,824 and provided a schedule listing medical expenses and travel costs. The judge found the earnings figure had no supporting calculation and that no vouching documents had been supplied.
A later letter from the plaintiff’s solicitor said she could not separate her earnings from her husband’s because they were jointly assessed, and formally withdrew the special damages and loss of earnings claims. The judge accepted uncontroverted affidavit evidence from the solicitor about the difficulty distinguishing their earnings. He said the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff had acted falsely or exaggerated her claim, but criticised her handling of the matter as substandard and found the situation arose from her conduct.
Applying the court’s discretion to relieve a party from an unless order, Mr Justice Heslin concluded that dismissing the entire claim would be disproportionate in the circumstances. He reinstated only the balance of the claim, with the court’s consent to withdrawal of all special damages and past and future loss of earnings. The ruling permits those remaining aspects to continue; it does not decide liability or the underlying injury allegations. The plaintiff may still be questioned at trial about medical treatment and the alleged accident’s effects on her life and work.
The defendants were awarded the costs of the application and the reasonable costs of defending the withdrawn damages claims, with the latter to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. The court did not impose a stay on the costs order.