Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses an application for aggravated damages where the defendant had initially attempted to claim the plaintiff was at fault for a road traffic accident, on the grounds that: (a) the defendant did not stand over the claim and had later admitted liability; (b) criminal proceedings were the correct method of responding to false claims; (c) the more usual manner of expressing a court's displeasure is a costs order; and (d) it would lead to an asymmetry between the plaintiff and defendant.
Road traffic accident – Defendant initially denied liability and claimed the Plaintiff was at fault for the accident – later admitted liability and case proceeding on an assessment only basis – Plaintiff seeks aggravated damages for Defendant attempting to blame Plaintiff – Court must consider conduct of Defence in the round when considering aggravated damages – Defendant did not stand over claim – if claim false or misleading, criminal proceedings should be initiated – more usual manner of expressing court’s displeasure in conduct of proceedings is costs order – there would be asymmetry between the Plaintiff and the Defendant if making claims in a Defence could lead to aggravated damages - not appropriate to make award of aggravated damages.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now