Trial judge affirmed in finding that plaintiff had not given ‘false or misleading’ evidence

Faherty J (nem diss): Personal injuries - assessment of damages - award of €302K in High Court - whether claim should have been dismissed - manner of assessment of damages - front seat passenger in motor vehicle - struck from behind - only minor damage to vehicle - no bony injuries - pre-accident medical history - surgery to correct 'Chiara 1 malformation' - portion of brain growing downwards into area of spinal cord - operation in June 2016 - accident in August 2016 - severe headaches - medical evidence on behalf of defendant - whether plaintiff able to return to work - evidence concerning loss of earnings - whether misleading to a material extent - eggshell skull - increase in severity and duration of headaches - significant neck and shoulder pain associated with headaches - development of severe left sided neck pain following accident - whether any 'non-engagement' by judge with facts of case - Book fo Quantum.

"While it is the case that the plaintiff here was not detained in hospital owing to the nature of the injury sustained in the accident or confined to a wheelchair and did not suffer the indignity of being unable to attend to her personal needs, she did, however, suffer persistent pain and discomfort post the road traffic accident to the extent that it affected her mood and caused her to be depressed at the loss of her ability to be able to return to work and enjoy her leisure time. This was against a background where the plaintiff had already undergone severely invasive surgery on 1 June 2016 which left her neck “significantly compromised” albeit she was making a recovery from that surgery by the time the accident occurred. As a result of her level of pain post the accident, the plaintiff had extensive invasive procedures from Dr. Harney and Dr. O’Sullivan with only temporary and limited effect.
...
In the circumstances of this case, the Judge was well within his discretion in finding the Book of Quantum of no great assistance. This is because, as noted by the Judge, the plaintiff’s multiple sites of injury “were superimposed on an already weakened neck”. "

Collins J (concurring): Whether claim should have been dismissed - whether defendant should have put to plaintiff in cross-examination that she had been 'deliberately dishonest'.

"In the light of these findings, and having regard to the well-established jurisprudence as to the limited role of this Court in relation to findings of fact made by the High Court based on its assessment of viva voce evidence, it might seem surprising that the First Defendant would appeal the High Court’s refusal to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action. Nonetheless, appeal it has."

"In my view, the First Defendant’s appeal from the refusal of its section 26 application simply does not get out of the blocks."

"In truth, the First Defendant failed to engage with the Judge’s findings and did not even attempt to discharge the burden of establishing that those findings should be set aside by this Court. Those findings were clearly supported by the evidence heard by him and the basis for them was clearly explained in his Judgment. They were made with the benefit of hearing the evidence of the Plaintiff (including her evidence in cross-examination) and of her principal treating doctors."