The High Court dismissed a glazier’s personal injury action after finding that he knowingly gave materially false or misleading evidence about his work and income following a workplace accident.
In a judgment delivered on 26 October 2012, Mr Justice Ryan found that the plaintiff’s action had to be dismissed under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. He concluded there was no basis for the statutory exception that would allow the claim to proceed to avoid injustice.
The plaintiff, Sean Meehan, was working for BKNS Curtain Walling Systems Limited at a building site on Abercorn Road, Dublin 1, on 29 September 2008, when he fell about eight feet from scaffolding. He suffered a serious fracture to his left heel and damage to the subtalar joint. His consultant said he faced a 50/50 chance of needing ankle fusion in the future and would be unable to return to glazier work or other heavy manual work.
The court rejected the pleaded account that he fell through defective scaffolding. CCTV footage showed an intermediate rail, and the plaintiff could not establish that a toe board was absent. The judge found no negligence or breach of statutory duty in the scaffolding itself.
However, the judge found a failure in the safe system of work when a long steel rod was not positioned close enough for the plaintiff to take it from the platform. The plaintiff stood on the toe board and leaned over the guard rail to reach it, then fell. The court apportioned two-thirds of the fault to the plaintiff and one-third to the defendants, finding that the system had not been properly operated for that rod.
The decisive issue was the plaintiff’s earnings claim. He had sought €95,000 for past loss of earnings and €385,470 for future loss. The judgment records that he repeatedly said he had not worked since the accident and that social welfare was his only income, but later acknowledged selling tickets at concerts and major sporting events. The judge found he had knowingly misled the court about his post-accident work and income, and that his changed account of how the accident happened was also knowingly false and misleading.
The judge assessed general damages at €75,000 for the past and €60,000 for the future, subject to contributory negligence, but said those figures could not be awarded separately from the claim affected by the false evidence. Section 26 required dismissal of the action as a whole, and the judge found the misrepresentations were not trivial enough to justify an injustice exception. The judgment therefore dismissed the action; it did not enter a damages award.