The Supreme Court dismissed Dublin Bus’s appeal against a €20,431 award to Conor O’Connor for injuries from a 1996 traffic accident, but ordered him to pay the defendant an additional sum under section 17(5) of the Courts Act 1981.
The appeal challenged the High Court’s finding that O’Connor had grossly exaggerated his symptoms but was not deliberately dishonest. Dublin Bus argued that the claim should have been dismissed as an abuse of process. It also sought an order relating to the extra costs of defending the case in the High Court.
O’Connor had claimed neck and back injuries after his vehicle was struck from behind by a bus on the Malahide Road. At trial, the judge found the injuries were probably moderate, rejected the claim that they had reduced O’Connor’s income, and awarded €15,000 in general damages and €5,431 in special damages.
The Supreme Court judgment described video footage from March 2001 showing O’Connor carrying out building work, including handling bags of sand and cement and using a cement mixer. The trial judge considered the footage inconsistent with O’Connor’s account of continuing disability, but found that he believed his account. The Supreme Court held that it could not set aside that assessment of his state of mind on the evidence before it. It therefore rejected the abuse-of-process argument.
The Court separately considered the way the loss-of-earnings claim had been presented. The claim remained unquantified, and correspondence had indicated that future loss was being pursued. At trial, after O’Connor’s direct evidence, his counsel said there was no claim for future loss. The judgment said the case could have been dealt with in the Circuit Court and that the uncertainty over earnings loss had helped keep it in the High Court.
The Supreme Court said an order under section 17(5) did not require a finding of fraud. It ordered O’Connor to pay Dublin Bus an amount equal to the difference between the sums specified in subsections 17(5)(a)(I) and (II). The judgment does not state the resulting euro amount. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court award affirmed, with that additional costs-related order.