The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Mulligan’s appeal against a High Court decision awarding Margaret Keating €80,000 in a personal injury action arising from a 2016 collision between his taxi and a LUAS tram. The appeal court upheld the rejection of his application to dismiss the claim under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, as well as the award of aggravated damages for allegations made during the litigation.
Keating said she injured her right shoulder and neck when she struck a bar on the tram. During the High Court trial, a report from her GP disclosed that she had been involved in another LUAS accident in August 2017. Her solicitors had sent letters of claim about that incident, but it was not disclosed in replies to particulars in the 2016 case, which Keating had verified by affidavit. The High Court judge found that the later accident should have been disclosed and that the solicitors knew about it.
The judge nevertheless rejected the section 26 application. He found that Keating had not deliberately misled the court, that she had not been asked about her later medical history during the first cross-examination, and that the injuries from the two accidents did not overlap. He also found no evidence that Keating or her solicitors deliberately withheld the GP report. The 2017 accident involved ribcage injuries that resolved rapidly; the injuries in the case were to her neck and shoulder.
The Court of Appeal said the defendant had to establish, to a high degree of probability, that evidence was materially false or misleading and that Keating knew it was. The appeal court found no basis to overturn the trial judge’s assessment of her honesty. It also held that the later accident was not material to the claim because the medical evidence was that the injuries were different and did not overlap. The court declined to revisit the High Court’s factual findings by viewing the tram CCTV footage.
The appeal court upheld the €10,000 aggravated damages award, finding the allegations that Keating had committed perjury and that her solicitors had engaged in fraud were unsupported and improper. It also left in place the High Court’s costs decision, which allowed Keating costs for a five-day hearing rather than the six days taken, reflecting time lost because the later accident had not been disclosed.
The High Court had assessed general damages at €60,000 to date and €10,000 for the future. The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with that assessment. It proposed that Keating receive the costs of the appeal, subject to written submissions on an alternative costs order within 14 days.