The High Court dismissed Thomas Moore’s personal injury claim against Mary Carroll and ordered him to pay 100% of the costs of both the Circuit Court action and the High Court action. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Twomey on 1 December 2017 in a circuit appeal.
Moore alleged that Carroll pulled out from a side road onto Pollerton Road, County Carlow, on 12 November 2013, causing him to brake suddenly and make contact with her car. He said tables and crates in the back of his van then struck the division behind the driver’s seat, injuring his back and left hip. The judgment described the vehicle contact as minor, leaving scuff marks on Moore’s bumper; it noted no claim was made for damage to the van’s internal division.
The court considered Moore’s previous accident claims relevant to his credibility. The judgment records settlements or payments of €31,150, €16,229 and €30,000 in earlier claims involving, among other things, back injuries, and €10,000 from a separate 2015 car accident. The judge found Moore’s explanations for not disclosing that 2015 accident inconsistent and unconvincing. The judgment also refers to at least one other workplace claim concerning a back injury.
The court found on the balance of probabilities that the van’s division would have been damaged if the tables and crates had struck Moore as he described. Because no claim was made for that damage, the judge considered it improbable that the alleged impact caused his injuries. The court also concluded it was highly improbable that the contact between the cars caused any personal injuries.
A consultant rheumatologist, Mr Khan, had given an opinion that the accident was likely linked to Moore’s back and hip symptoms. The judgment noted that this opinion followed a GP letter recording chronic left hip pain dating back to 2004. The judge said it was possible the specialist had relied on information supplied by Moore and had not been told of the pre-existing hip problem. Citing the Court of Appeal’s decision in Byrne v Ardenheath, the judgment said courts should exercise considerable caution when relying on experts retained by a party.
The High Court said it had no hesitation in dismissing Moore’s claim and awarding Carroll all costs of the Circuit Court and High Court actions. The extract does not set out the full terms of the formal order.