Judgment: 2011-05-27 · Court archive

High Court awards €45,000 after salon bleach treatment damaged woman’s hair

The court found Swan Park Limited wholly responsible for the damage and rejected its application to dismiss the claim over alleged misrepresentation.

The High Court · [2011] IEHC 232

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

The court found Swan Park Limited wholly responsible for the damage and rejected its application to dismiss the claim over alleged misrepresentation.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court awarded a woman €45,000 after finding that a bleach treatment at a hair salon caused her hair to break off and led to an adjustment disorder and a period when she could not meaningfully pursue her painting career.

The High Court awarded a woman €45,000 after finding that a bleach treatment at a hair salon caused her hair to break off and led to an adjustment disorder and a period when she could not meaningfully pursue her painting career.

In a judgment delivered on 27 May 2011, Mr Justice O’Neill found Swan Park Limited, trading as Hair Republic, wholly responsible for the damage. He awarded €30,000 in general damages for the distress and adjustment disorder, and a further €15,000 for the lost fruits of the woman’s artistic creativity during the affected period.

The treatment took place on 28 March 2007. The judgment says the woman’s hair began breaking during the salon visit and continued to fall away over the following six weeks. The salon tried several treatments, but they did not reverse the damage. On 12 May 2007, it cut away the remaining damaged hair.

The company argued that the woman had been advised against the treatment because it came too soon after her previous colour treatment. The stylist who allegedly gave that advice did not give evidence. The judge accepted the woman’s evidence that no such advice had been given. He considered excessive bleach overlap, likely during a second colour application by a stylist insufficiently skilled or experienced, the more probable cause.

The company also applied to dismiss the claim under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, alleging gross misrepresentation about the woman’s social activities, income and psychiatric history. The judge rejected that application. He accepted her explanations about her reduced participation in activities, earlier antidepressant medication and an income schedule that incorrectly described hotel wages as painting income. He found she had not intentionally misled the company or the court.

The judgment says the woman experienced social withdrawal and lost motivation and energy. Two psychiatrists agreed she had suffered an adjustment disorder as a result of the hair incident. She said she recovered from its physical and psychological effects by December 2008, and that her hair took about 18 months to grow back to its previous length.

The €45,000 was the total award stated in the judgment. The source does not specify a separate order for costs or any other relief.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review