The High Court rejected an application to dismiss Margaret Keating’s personal injuries action under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, finding that the defendant had not established an intention to mislead the court or materially misleading evidence. Mr Justice Cross awarded Keating €70,000 in compensatory damages and €10,000 in aggravated damages, a total of €80,000.
Keating was a passenger on a Luas tram on 15 June 2016 when a taxi driven by Martin Mulligan collided with it near Heuston Station. Mulligan did not deny liability. The court heard that Keating struck her right shoulder and later went to St James’s Hospital with pain and numbness. Imaging was largely normal, though an MRI showed multilevel degenerative changes. Medical evidence described persistent neck and shoulder symptoms, with muscle spasm, and depression linked in part to the collision. The judge found her a truthful witness who had not exaggerated her symptoms.
The dismissal application centred on a separate Luas incident in August 2017, when Keating was thrown against a railing and suffered rib injuries. She had not included that incident in replies to particulars or the related affidavit of verification. Her solicitors had written to the Luas company about it. The defendant also alleged that a GP report mentioning the incident had been deliberately withheld and that Keating had misled the court in her evidence.
The judge found that the GP report was provided promptly after the solicitors received it, and there was no basis for alleging deliberate suppression or improper conduct. Keating had not been asked about her subsequent medical history in her evidence, and the judge found she had not given false or misleading testimony. The rib injuries had not been pleaded as part of this claim, had resolved rapidly and did not overlap with the neck, shoulder and psychological injuries at issue.
Although the judge accepted that the incident should have been disclosed, he found no proven intention to mislead and no materially misleading evidence substantial enough to render the claim fraudulent. The section 26 application therefore failed. The judge also found that the defendant’s allegations went beyond what the application required and lacked evidential support, and awarded aggravated damages.
The court assessed general damages at €60,000 for injuries to date and €10,000 for future injuries. It did not award special damages: the plaintiff did not pursue those items at the conclusion of the case.