The High Court has ordered that costs in a road traffic injury case be adjudicated on a higher-than-usual basis after finding that the defence included an unsupported allegation that the plaintiff deliberately caused the collision.
In a judgment delivered on 28 February 2020, Mr Justice Garrett Simons directed that costs be assessed on a “legal practitioner and client” basis. The order applies to the plaintiff’s costs before the Circuit Court and on the High Court appeal, subject to a specific limit concerning discovery costs.
The plaintiff, Michael Doyle, had sought damages for injuries said to have resulted from a collision on 1 August 2017, when the defendant’s car struck his vehicle from behind. A separate, earlier High Court judgment awarded him €25,000 in general damages but refused aggravated damages. Liability was conceded for the High Court appeal, which proceeded as an assessment of damages.
The costs dispute arose because the Personal Injuries Defence alleged that Doyle had deliberately caused the collision. The judgment said the allegation imputed fraud and dishonesty. The defendant, Marie Donovan, had sworn an affidavit verifying the defence. When questioned at the Circuit Court hearing, she said she could not say Doyle had stopped on purpose and did not stand over the allegation. No evidence supporting it was later produced, and the defendant and her insurer, Aviva, gave no explanation to the High Court for how it came to be included. The defence was not amended and the verifying affidavit was not corrected.
The defendant opposed higher costs and alleged during the costs submissions that Doyle had exaggerated his claim by including receipts for solpadeine bought for a family member. The judge said the receipts had not been put in evidence, the allegation had not been part of the December 2019 hearing, and it had not been put to Doyle in cross-examination. Defence counsel accepted that the alleged exaggeration was worth less than €30.
The judge concluded that the unsupported allegation could have harmed Doyle’s reputation and might have deterred him from pursuing his claim. Applying the principles in *Trafalgar Developments Ltd. v. Mazepin*, the court found the conduct justified the higher costs basis.
The order allows all reasonable costs, including senior and junior counsel and the written legal submissions. Doyle cannot recover costs for making discovery: the judgment said his discovery affidavit had failed to identify or list individual documents.