Court cuts damages over false claims

A welsh woman who sued Bus Átha Cliath over a fall on a "wedding bus" had her £129,375 (€154,306) damages cut to £45,000 by the Supreme Court yesterday after it found her claim relating to loss of earnings was "consciously false".

While accepting Ms Siwsan Shelly-Morris (52), a mother of two and former community worker, had sustained a significant knee injury, given rise to a considerable measure of pain, and that she had suffered depression and upset, the three-judge court ruled her deliberate exaggeration of the effects of her injuries, particularly on her ability to work again, had consequences for her whole case.

It rejected her claim that she could not work again because of the injuries. She had claimed some £412,000 for loss of earnings to date and into the future.

Allowing Bus Átha Cliath's appeal against the High Court's award to Ms Shelly-Morris, the Supreme Court held that she and the company were each 50 per cent negligent for the injuries sustained on a "wedding bus" while it was travelling to a wedding reception in Killiney, Dublin, on September 22nd, 1995.

The High Court had found the company 75 per cent negligent and the plaintiff 25 per cent negligent.

The Supreme Court left unchanged a £70,000 award for pain and suffering to date but reduced to £20,000 the £40,000 award made by the High Court for pain and suffering in the future.

It set aside an award of a further £25,000 for loss of earnings into the future and £37,500 for loss of pension and gratuity.

The court held the bus had jerked forward after being stopped at a red light. However, it said the plaintiff was 50 per cent negligent because, given the bus was proceeding like that, she had moved to climb the stairs, in high heels, and with her two-year-old daughter on her hip.

Dividing the award in half, the plaintiff was left with £45,000 damages.

The court noted the company had hired an investigator to observe Ms Shelly-Morris over a considerable period. She had claimed she could not work again because of her injuries.

However, a video-tape of Ms Shelly-Morris, played to the High Court and Supreme Court, showed her walking on the street, getting in and out of a car, holding a child in one arm at hip level and walking up and down a sloping drive carrying items in one hand.

It also showed her bringing a walking stick when returning from the premises of a consultant employed by Bus Átha Cliath.

For much of the video, she was shown as not using a stick at all.

Mr Justice Hardiman noted Ms Shelly-Morris' counsel had conceded the video tape did not give the impression of a woman who was disabled or impaired. He also said Ms Shelly-Morris had told a number of deliberate falsehoods in relation to her symptoms and capacities.

He held that she is capable of working. In pretending to be unable for any significant work, she was guilty of serious falsehood, he said.

The judge said it must not be thought a falsehood in respect of one aspect of a claim would, at worst, lead to that particular part of the claim being reduced or disallowed.

The courts had a power and duty to protect their own processes from being made the vehicle of unjustified recovery.

A plaintiff found to have engaged in deliberate falsehood must face the fact a number of consequences arose from such finding, including the undermining of their general credibility.