The High Court dismissed two personal injury proceedings arising from minor contact between two cars in Waterford, finding that the claimants had not proved damage to the car or any injury. The court accepted that contact occurred, but concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claims were false or misleading.
Mr Justice Twomey delivered the judgment on 22 June 2021 in appeals involving Scott Hardy and Damien Hennessy. The claims followed an incident on 22 July 2016. The judgment states that Bridhge Bible’s car made minor contact with the tow bar of Hardy’s stationary car at traffic lights. Bible said the contact caused a small crack to her own bumper and no damage to Hardy’s car.
The Circuit Court had awarded €1,250 for alleged vehicle damage and €5,000 in general damages for the men’s injuries, with legal costs on the District Court scale. On appeal, the High Court considered evidence including a €7,850 repair estimate obtained four days after the incident. The court noted that Hardy’s car was not made available for inspection, and found inconsistencies between the estimate and his later accounts, including that he had described there as being “not much damage to the car”. The court concluded that Hardy’s car had suffered no damage.
The court also found that neither Hardy nor Hennessy had suffered personal injuries. It considered their accounts, medical records and consultant reports, and found the men not credible witnesses. The judgment noted that both men had attended Waterford Hospital’s emergency department four days after the incident, while Hennessy’s discharge note recorded “occasional neck pain” and no need for an X-ray. It also noted that their solicitor, rather than their GPs, had referred them to a consultant rheumatologist. The judge said this referral was relevant to the court’s assessment of the claims, while making clear there was no suggestion that the solicitor or consultant knew the claims were false.
The High Court went further than the Circuit Court and dismissed both sets of proceedings. It made no order for costs in favour of the plaintiffs. The judgment also states that Bible, who had faced litigation in the Circuit Court and High Court over four years, had costs awarded in her favour, though it considered those costs unlikely to be recovered from the unemployed plaintiffs.