The High Court dismissed Patrick Higgins’s personal injury claim after finding that he knowingly swore an affidavit containing materially false and misleading information about his earnings and claimed future costs. The judge found that dismissal would have serious consequences for Higgins but that the evidence did not establish an injustice that would permit the court to make an exception under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004.
Higgins was injured on 19 March 2002 while examining a tractor owned by the second defendant, Michael Quigley. His coat sleeve became caught in a revolving shaft, and his right thumb was later amputated. He sued his employer, Caldark Limited, and Quigley, alleging negligence. The defendants denied liability and argued that Higgins’s own negligence caused or contributed to his injuries.
On liability, the court found that the defendants’ servant and agent had primarily caused the accident by activating the shaft when it was unsafe to do so. It also found that Higgins contributed by failing to keep a proper lookout and positioning himself close to a shaft he knew, or should have known, could be activated. The judge attributed 75 per cent of the fault to the defendants and 25 per cent to Higgins. Those findings did not result in a damages award because the claim was dismissed under section 26.
The dismissal application concerned Higgins’s December 2008 affidavit verifying particulars of special damage and an actuarial report. The court found that he had failed to disclose substantial payments and expenses received from Caldark Limited in 2002, 2003 and 2004, while claiming loss of earnings. The affidavit also supported a claim of €137,415 for future home and gardening help and assistive items. The court noted that the claim was later reduced, and Higgins accepted that he had not obtained home help or painting assistance and had installed only two sets of grab rails.
The judge concluded that the affidavit’s relevant statements were materially false and misleading and that Higgins knew this when he swore it. The court was not satisfied that the defendants had proved that he gave or adduced materially false or misleading evidence during the hearing; the dismissal order instead followed from the finding about his section 14 affidavit.
Higgins argued that dismissing the whole claim would cause injustice and that the court could award damages for valid parts while excluding misleading claims. The judge rejected that approach, explaining that section 26 required dismissal unless evidence showed exceptional circumstances establishing injustice. The serious consequences for Higgins and his entitlement to compensation, without more, did not meet that test. The court found no sufficient evidence of exceptional circumstances and ordered the claim dismissed.