The High Court dismissed a woman’s personal injury claim against Dublin Bus after finding it highly probable that she knowingly gave materially misleading evidence about her earnings following a 2004 road traffic accident.
In a judgment delivered on 30 July 2010, Mr Justice John Quirke ordered the dismissal under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. The court was assessing damages after Dublin Bus admitted liability for the collision. It did not make a criminal finding.
The plaintiff said her car was stationary at traffic lights at the junction of North Circular Road and Dorset Street when a bus struck it from behind on 14 June 2004. She described neck and elbow injuries and sought damages, including loss of earnings.
Before a trial listed for July 2008, she swore an affidavit stating she had received no earnings apart from social welfare benefits between the accident and 30 June 2008. Her solicitors also sent the defendant a report estimating past lost income at about €71,000 and future losses between €161,452 and €343,000, based on her instructions. The defendant obtained an adjournment to investigate those claims.
At the 2010 hearing, the plaintiff accepted that the 2008 claim that she had not worked during that period was untrue and that she knew it was untrue. She had begun driving a taxi in October 2007. Her evidence was that she earned about €280 in 2007 and €3,085 between January and October 2008. She also said she had occasionally worked without pay at a Harold’s Cross food business. Her claim for future loss of earnings was discontinued, then she sought to reinstate a claim for past losses up to the present. No evidence of earnings after October 2008 was produced.
The judge considered the earnings affidavit alongside the plaintiff’s changing claims, missing earnings records and evidence about her work, symptoms and physical capacity. The judgment also noted that she had not told medical practitioners about earlier road accidents or a 2005 fall, and that some recorded movements appeared inconsistent with symptoms she had described to doctors.
The court applied the civil standard of proof, requiring a high probability in light of the serious consequences of a section 26 finding. It found that the plaintiff had knowingly given or caused to be given materially misleading evidence in support of her claim. It rejected the argument that dismissing the action would cause injustice, finding that no credible explanation had been provided for abandoning substantial claims or for the lack of supporting evidence. The court dismissed the claim.