The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a motorcyclist and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) against a High Court judgment awarding €700,500 to Piotr Kurzyna for injuries suffered in a 2010 road traffic accident.
In a judgment delivered on 24 June 2015, Ms Justice Irvine said the defendants had not established a valid ground to disturb the trial judge’s findings. Mr Justice Edwards and Mr Justice Kelly agreed. The appeal concerned liability-related credibility findings, damages and an application under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. The defendants had withdrawn a separate ground alleging that the trial had been unsatisfactory because of interruptions by the trial judge.
The accident happened on 3 October 2010, as Kurzyna travelled by motorcycle from his home in Navan towards Slane. He said the first defendant’s motorcycle struck his from behind. During the High Court trial, the first defendant amended his defence to allege that an untraced motorist had hit him from behind and propelled his motorcycle into Kurzyna’s. The High Court judge rejected that account and found for Kurzyna on liability. That finding was not appealed.
The High Court awarded €700,500 in damages: €96,500 for past earnings and agreed special damages, €329,000 for future earnings, €183,000 for pain and suffering to date and €92,000 for future pain and suffering. It also ordered the defendants to pay €39,970.80 to the Minister for Social Protection. Execution of the judgment was stayed pending appeal on terms that the MIBI pay Kurzyna €250,000 and lodge its notice of appeal within the required time.
The MIBI argued that Kurzyna had given fraudulent evidence about his prior back problems and work after the accident. The Court of Appeal found that his compensation application form disclosed pre-existing degenerative spinal disease before he was examined by a doctor retained for that process. It also upheld the trial judge’s finding that Kurzyna had not done remunerative work after the accident. Although he had helped a friend at the friend’s premises, Kurzyna said he was unpaid.
The appellate court accepted that the pain-and-suffering award was near the top of the range, but found it proportionate and declined to interfere. It also upheld the earnings awards, noting the medical and vocational evidence about Kurzyna’s reduced capacity for physical work and limited prospects of employment.
The judges strongly criticised the MIBI’s cross-examination of Kurzyna over an alleged attempt to mislead the compensation board. They said the form disclosing his spinal condition was in the MIBI’s possession. The court dismissed the appeal; it did not retry the case or make a new damages assessment.