The High Court awarded Katarzyna Plonka €100,000 after finding she suffered a minor back injury in a 2012 collision and rejecting the defendant’s allegation that she had deliberately exaggerated her symptoms.
In a judgment delivered on 18 March 2016, Mr Justice Cross found that the impact was minor, at an estimated speed of 5mph or less. He accepted that Ms Plonka had an existing vulnerable back, including symptoms and a separate work injury before the collision. He found she suffered a genuine, though not severe, lumbar injury and a neck soft-tissue injury that quickly resolved.
The defendant argued that Ms Plonka had suffered no appreciable injury, or had overstated her condition to obtain compensation. It relied on surveillance footage and photographs, and asked the court to dismiss the action under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which applies where a plaintiff knowingly gives or adduces materially false or misleading evidence.
The judge found that the surveillance did not establish fraud or deliberate exaggeration. The investigator had watched Ms Plonka over 29 days and saw her leave her home on four occasions; the footage showed her doing some tasks in her garden without crutches, but her feet and legs were obscured by a wall. The judge considered the evidence as a whole consistent with her using crutches for support outside and being largely housebound. He accepted that her symptoms were not explained by a neurological or orthopaedic pattern, but found that “catastrophisation”—a disproportionate response to the injury—was the most probable explanation. He did not accept that the section 26 allegation was made out.
The court also noted limits in the evidence. It had no psychological or psychiatric evidence to establish the nature or likely duration of Ms Plonka’s symptoms, and the judge said he could not speculate against the defendant. He assessed future damages on the assumption of a good outcome.
The award comprised €20,000 for past loss of earnings, €50,000 for pain and suffering to date, €15,000 for future pain and suffering, and €15,000 for loss of job opportunity. The judgment records a total of €100,000. It does not state any separate order on costs.