The Supreme Court has dismissed Dublin Bus’s appeal against a €20,431 High Court award to Conor O’Connor for injuries and expenses arising from a 1996 collision on Malahide Road, affirming the High Court’s order, including its costs order.
Liability for the collision was not disputed. The High Court heard the case as an assessment of damages and awarded €15,000 in general damages, €4,790 for car repairs, €595 for physiotherapy and €46 for a general practitioner visit. It found no reduction in O’Connor’s income and awarded nothing for loss of earnings or future general damages. The award totalled €20,431, with costs on the Circuit Court scale and certification of a Senior Counsel fee.
Dublin Bus challenged the trial judge’s finding that O’Connor was basically honest despite grossly exaggerating his symptoms. It argued that his evidence and pleadings included contradictions and falsehoods, that the claim should have been dismissed as an abuse of process, and that the judge should have ordered him to pay some of the additional costs of bringing the case in the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that an appeal court should generally defer to a trial judge who saw and heard a witness, particularly on credibility. The trial judge had expressly found exaggeration but concluded O’Connor believed what he said and was not deliberately lying. The Supreme Court said credible evidence supported that assessment, including evidence from orthopaedic surgeon Mr McNamee, and declined to interfere. It rejected the first three grounds of appeal and concluded that the abuse-of-process issue did not arise on the findings made.
The court also refused to alter the costs decision. Under section 17(5) of the Courts Act 1981, as amended, a judge may order a successful plaintiff to pay certain additional costs where proceedings were not brought in the lowest court with jurisdiction. The Supreme Court said the trial judge had discretion to consider all the circumstances. Given the finding that O’Connor honestly believed his business income had fallen after the accident, the judge could reasonably conclude he had not acted unreasonably or irresponsibly by bringing the case in the High Court. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order, including costs, affirmed.