The High Court dismissed a personal injury claim after finding that the plaintiff had knowingly given false or misleading evidence about facial symptoms and verified misleading injury particulars. The court made the finding on the balance of probabilities and ordered dismissal under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004.
The case concerned damages arising from a road crash on 25 October 2002. The plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by the first defendant and owned by the second. Liability for the crash was not in issue; the court was assessing damages. The plaintiff claimed lasting numbness and tingling in his left cheek, which he attributed to the crash. The defendants alleged the symptoms arose from a later incident involving a tree branch on 1 May 2003, which the plaintiff had not disclosed.
The judgment records that no hospital record or other witness about the alleged branch incident was produced by the defendants. The plaintiff said he could not remember it, and did not categorically deny that it happened. The judge rejected his lack of recollection as not credible and found, on the balance of probabilities, that he had received a blow to the face from a branch and failed to disclose it.
The court considered medical records and reports, the pleadings and the plaintiff’s evidence. An October 2002 hospital letter reported that an initial facial injury had subsided and recorded no nasal obstruction. Later imaging showed no nasal fracture, although the statement of claim alleged a broken nose. A specialist report in 2003 recorded left cheek numbness but, the judgment says, was based on a history that did not include the alleged tree incident. A neurologist’s later report linked the numbness to the 2002 crash, but the judge said that opinion relied on the plaintiff’s account and limited information.
The judge found that the plaintiff had deliberately attributed the later facial injury to the 2002 crash and had knowingly given false or misleading evidence in a material respect. The court also found that he knowingly verified misleading assertions in his statement of claim and replies to particulars, including the claim of a broken nose despite contrary imaging evidence.
The judge said an award for the facial symptoms would be unjust to the defendants and that the evidence did not establish those symptoms were caused by the 2002 crash. Although the court assessed damages at €20,000 for past pain and suffering and €30,000 for future pain and suffering, it did not award those sums: it dismissed the entire action under section 26, finding no injustice would result from dismissal. The judgment notes that no details of a special damages claim had been provided.