The High Court dismissed a carpenter’s personal injury claim after finding that he dishonestly exaggerated his symptoms to medical experts, misleading them about the effects of a fall at work.
Mr Justice Murphy ruled on 16 November 2011 that the plaintiff had knowingly given, and caused others to give, materially false or misleading evidence about his injuries. The court found this was done with the intention of misleading the court and dismissed the action under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004.
The plaintiff said he fell from scaffolding while working as an apprentice roofer at a housing development in Carrig Linn, Loughrea, on 5 April 2007. He alleged the scaffold lacked a ladder and that the defendants were negligent. The defendants denied liability and disputed the circumstances of the fall and the extent of his injuries.
The judgment records that the plaintiff’s injuries were treated at hospital without an overnight stay. The court considered the medical evidence, his activities and work after the accident, and his accounts to doctors. It found he had exaggerated the consequences of the fall and that his reported use of a crutch and limp appeared dishonest. Those reports led medical consultants to give evidence suggesting more serious injuries than the hospital records supported.
The court also noted gaps and uncertainties in the evidence about the accident. The plaintiff’s two co-workers did not testify; the court found no corroboration that a defendant had erected the scaffold or removed a ladder, and it was unclear which defendant was responsible for providing one. The court was not satisfied that the plaintiff had been required to climb the scaffold. It also recorded that no letter of claim had been sent within the statutory two-month period.
The judge considered whether dismissing the entire action would cause injustice. He referred to the plaintiff’s earlier depression, later farm work and other activities, employment in windscreen repair, and his admitted roofing work after the accident. The court rejected the argument that it should simply exclude the claim based on the false or misleading evidence and allow the rest to proceed.
The ruling determined the personal injury action by dismissal. The judgment does not award damages to the plaintiff.