The High Court dismissed Adjoua Salako’s personal injury action against Stephen O’Carroll under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, finding that she deliberately exaggerated her symptoms to medical examiners to support her claim for damages. The court also found that dismissing the claim would not cause injustice.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered judgment on 25 January 2013, after hearing evidence over about ten days. The defendant had applied to have the entire proceedings dismissed. The court said section 26 required dismissal where a plaintiff knowingly gave, or caused another person to give, materially false or misleading evidence, unless dismissal would result in injustice.
The claim arose from a rear-end collision on 2 October 2008. The judgment described the impact as minor, citing the evidence of the defendant and a garda who attended the scene, as well as photographs showing little damage to the rear of the plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff claimed continuing headaches, neck and shoulder pain, jaw pain and lower back symptoms.
The judge noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s accounts, while allowing for her difficulties with English and recall. He said those inconsistencies alone would not justify dismissal. His decision rested principally on the way she presented her lower-back symptoms during medical examinations and on surveillance footage.
The court found that the plaintiff’s presentation to consultant orthopaedic surgeon Mr Fitzpatrick in February 2009 and May 2012 was deliberately exaggerated. The judge relied on unexplained inconsistencies in examination findings, including her reported inability to bend or raise a leg in some tests despite being able to perform related movements in others. He also considered footage showing her walking without a crutch after attending an examination using one.
Evidence from the plaintiff’s own consultant, Mr Poynton, also weighed heavily. He considered surveillance footage from July and August 2011 inconsistent with the severe disability and difficulty walking the plaintiff had described at an examination in September. The judge found that, without an explanation for the difference, the plaintiff had given Mr Poynton an incorrect and misleading picture.
The court also relied on evidence from the defendant’s consultant, Mr McQuillan, who said the plaintiff’s reported severe restriction of back movement in January 2012 was not a genuine physical finding. The judge concluded that the evidence from each of the three doctors was independently sufficient to support dismissal under section 26.
The order dismissed the entire claim. The judgment records no award of damages to the plaintiff.