The High Court dismissed Muhammad Khalid’s personal injury claim arising from a 25 March 2015 collision in Longford, finding he had not proved that the collision caused or contributed to his neck and back injuries. It also dismissed the case under sections 26(1) and 26(2) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, concerning false or misleading evidence and verification.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Niamh Hyland on 28 July 2022, concerned Khalid’s appeal from a Circuit Court dismissal. The original proceedings, issued in 2016, had been dismissed after a full hearing by order of Fergus J. on 27 November 2020. Khalid represented himself in the High Court appeal. The judgment records evidence from him and Gerard Davis of Longford County Council.
Davis had been driving a council dumper truck behind a car in which Khalid was a front-seat passenger. Davis said he released the brake but had not put the truck into gear; it rolled into the car while the traffic lights remained red. The judge said negligence in the collision had been established, and that medical evidence supported an injury likely caused by an impact.
The difficulty was that Khalid had been involved in two other road accidents close in time: one on 18 March 2015 and another on 23 July 2015. Medical records referred to neck or back complaints after all three incidents. The judge found that Khalid had consistently focused on the 25 March collision in the proceedings and in information given to medical practitioners. He had also replied “no” when asked in March 2017 whether he had suffered injuries in another accident, and verified those replies by affidavit.
The judge said the evidence did not allow her to determine what injuries were caused or contributed to by the 25 March collision, rather than by the other accidents. She rejected the claim that the court should investigate the events or direct witnesses to attend, explaining that the hearing was adversarial and it was not the judge’s role to conduct an investigation. The claim was dismissed for failure to prove causation.
Separately, the judge found the replies to particulars and their affidavit of verification incorrect, and concluded Khalid must have known this. She ordered dismissal under both section 26(1) and section 26(2), finding the balance of justice did not warrant refusing those orders. The judgment does not state a damages award.