A woman who initially claimed some €410,000 damages for loss of earnings arising from a whiplash injury when a Dublin Bus collided with the rear of her car has had her case dismissed after a High Court judge found it was ?highly probable? she gave misleading evidence as to the extent of her injuries and about her capacity to work.
Dublin Bus had produced video evidence to the court of Mary Farrell, Tolka Valley Green, Finglas South, Dublin, engaging in physical activities, such as mowing the grass for some 40 minutes, emptying the grass box over a wall and repeatedly raising her arm above horizontal, which the company claimed were entirely inconsistent with her claims about the extent of her injuries.
Mr Justice John Quirke ruled Ms Farrell, who had worked with Jury?s hotel as a housekeeper/cleaner, had given no credible explanation for her failure to provide any documentary or other evidence to support her claim for loss of earnings or to contest Dublin Bus?s allegation her claims were ?false and misleading?.
There was also no credible explanation for the undisputed fact Ms Farrell had abandoned claims for very large sums of money when advised she was being investigated, he said.
He rejected the portrayal of Ms Farrell as a ?naive, unquestioning person, uninformed and unaware of appropriate legal procedures? who had unwittingly failed to disclose earnings she considered unimportant and irrelevant to her claim. She had been advised and represented by a solicitor and by counsel, the judge noted.
He found no evidence to explain her ?comfortable lifestyle? between 2004 and 2008 when she claimed to have been incapable of earning and was dependent on Social Welfare benefits.
Ms Farrell had taken an action against Dublin Bus over an accident on June 14th 2004 at the junction of North Circular Road and Dorset Street in Dublin. She claimed her vehicle was stationary at traffic lights when the collision occurred and she had suffered a ?whiplash? type injury to her neck.
Liability for the accident was conceded by Dublin Bus and the case had proceeded as an assessment of damages only. However, the company took issue with the amount of damages sought and Ms Farrell later abandoned some aspects of her claim.
The company applied to have the claim dismissed under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 which allows for the dismissal of claims where a court considers a person gave material misleading evidence to boost their claim or in support of a false claim.
In his decision, Mr Justice Quirke said Ms Farrell?s claim that she had not worked at any time between the date of the road accident and July 2008 because of her injury was not true and she knew it was not true when the claim was advanced on her behalf in July 2008. She also agreed she had in October 2007 bought a €6,700 taxi plate entitling her to work as a taxi driver.
She also agreed she purchased a new black Toyata Avensis car in 2005 at a cost of ?€25,000 or €26,000? on hire purchase with repayments of €460 per month and a new Toyota Corolla in 2006 for between €26,000 and €28,000.
She had also flown to the United States twice a year between 1999 and 2007 at a cost of more than €600 per flight. She also went to Italy at least once every year on holiday and stayed in the home of an Italian friend who owned a fish and chip premises in Harold?s Cross, Dublin where she claimed to have worked in 2007 and 2008 without pay.
She agreed that between June 2004 and August 2008 she was in receipt of a social welfare illness benefit of €148 per week, the judge noted.
The judge said, when the case was opened on July 13th 2010, it was indicated Ms Farrell was now confining her claim for loss of earnings to the period from the date of her injury until October 2007. She had abandoned altogether her claim for future loss of earnings.
The Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 was enacted to discourage people from bringing false or exaggerated claims in personal injury cases, he said. A court had to dismiss a claim if it was satisfied a plaintiff had given material misleading evidence unless the court believed dismissal would result in an injustice.
He found it was highly probable that Ms Farrell had, with the benefit of experienced professional advice, given or adduced evidence which she knew was misleading and it was probable she did so to support her claim her injuries deprived her of any income from the date of her accident in June 2008. If successful, she would have secured a significant six figure sum and it was highly probable she knew that, he said.
On the basis of all his findings, he was satisfied Dublin Bus was entitled to an order dismissing the claim.
The judge also noted Ms Farrell had agreed she received a damages award of €12,500 to compensate her for injuries suffered in a road traffic accident in 1995; €18,000 for injuries in a road accident in 1999 and €5,620 from Dublin Bus to compensate her for damage to her car which resulted from the road accident in this case.