The High Court dismissed Stacey Montgomery’s personal injury claim after finding that she knowingly withheld a 2010 road accident and gave materially misleading evidence in her case over injuries from a 2007 collision.
In a judgment delivered on 23 October 2012, Mr Justice O’Neill said the case proceeded on an assessment of damages because liability for the 4 August 2007 crash was admitted. Montgomery had been a front-seat passenger in her mother’s Jeep when it collided with a garda car.
The defendants applied under section 26 of the Civil Liability Act 2004 to have the claim dismissed, alleging that Montgomery had knowingly given false or misleading evidence and sworn a false affidavit of verification. The court rejected some grounds. It found that an earlier “clicking” episode in her back should have been disclosed, but accepted that it was not material to the damages assessment. It also found that although her affidavit wrongly said she had not been involved in another accident, she likely made that statement through oversight rather than knowingly.
The court treated the 21 June 2010 road accident differently. O’Neill J found Montgomery had consciously withheld it from doctors, believing it did not affect her earlier condition, and concluded that she knew it bore directly on her complaints and suppressed it to protect and enhance her claim. The omission prevented most of the doctors from assessing the later crash’s effect, the judge said, and left the court without a reliable medical picture of her condition afterward.
The judgment also considered records of 30 chiropractic sessions between July 2009 and February 2010, which Montgomery had not fully disclosed to the court or her doctors. The judge said he could infer she did not regard the treatment as relevant, but noted that its cost had been claimed. He found she had recovered from the 2007 injuries before the 2010 collision.
O’Neill J rejected Montgomery’s evidence of significant continuing pain from the first crash. He cited medical examinations, her continued hairdressing work and testimony from her employer, who had noticed no change in her performance. The judge also found her claim that she could do only half the work of colleagues was untrue, and that her claim for lost opportunity to become a dance teacher was false because she had no serious intention of pursuing that career.
The court dismissed the action under section 26(1), finding the knowing non-disclosure of the 2010 crash alone warranted dismissal. The judgment did not assess damages or make a damages award.