Spurious personal injuries claim has to pay other side's costs

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,789
This happens so rarely it's worth highlighting

www.independent.ie

Man who said he slipped on wet shop floor ‘played expensive game of chicken with the courts’ before he withdrew claim

A man who alleged his back and pelvis were injured when he slipped and fell in a Spar shop, had played an expensive game of chicken with the court right up until the last minute, a judge was told today.
www.independent.ie www.independent.ie

Barrister Paul McMorrow said Christopher Morgan had withdrawn a €60,000 damages claim only hours after having last night been given CCTV footage of his alleged fall in Spar in Artane, Dublin, in December 2017.

...

Judge Berkeley was told in the Circuit Civil Court that Mr Morgan was withdrawing his claim and was offering to pay the legal costs of Nolagh Foods Limited, owner of Spar Artane on the, Malahide Road. She made an order for costs against him.
 
It happened in December 2017. Why did they only show him the footage recently?

If they told him they had the incident on camera it may never have gotten to court at all.
 
Páid said:
It happened in December 2017. Why did they only show him the footage recently?

If they told him they had the incident on camera it may never have gotten to court at all.
Click to expand...
It’s called ambushing the plaintiff. To make an example and so that there is a punitive element to the costs order that will inevitably be made against him.

The insurance company will spin a dishonest plaintiff out over a long period in the knowledge that they already have what they need to catch him out at the time of their choosing. If they let on that they know the real story too soon, the plaintiff can pull out with no real cost to himself. That, or it gives him time to make up a story.

The longer things get spun out, the worse it is for the plaintiff who will have embarked on a series of deceptions by the time the litigation hits court.

Nothing beats the element of surprise in litigation.
 
Last edited:
Johnno75 said:
The longer things get spun out, the worse it is for the plaintiff who will have embarked on a series of deceptions by the time the litigation hits court.

Nothing beats the element of surprise in litigation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And even better if the litigant had lined up some expensive 'expert witnesses' to give evidence about the extent of his pain and trauma!
 
Do they not have to file a defence? Surely something as important as CCTV evidence (and central to their defence) would need to have been mentioned and entered into evidence?

They are just as guilty as the plaintiff in wasting the courts time.
 
Johnno75 said:
It’s called ambushing the plaintiff. To make an example and so that there is a punitive element to the costs order that will inevitably be made against him.

The insurance company will spin a dishonest plaintiff out over a long period in the knowledge that they already have what they need to catch him out at the time of their choosing. If they let on that they know the real story too soon, the plaintiff can pull out with no real cost to himself. That, or it gives him time to make up a story.

The longer things get spun out, the worse it is for the plaintiff who will have embarked on a series of deceptions by the time the litigation hits court.

Nothing beats the element of surprise in litigation.
Click to expand...
Sounds unfair on the shop owner to drag it out, presumably they are stuck with that insurance company paying higher premiums while this claim is outstanding for 4 years.
 
Coldwarrior said:
Sounds unfair on the shop owner to drag it out, presumably they are stuck with that insurance company paying higher premiums while this claim is outstanding for 4 years.
Click to expand...
That’s one way of looking at it.

But once your insurer indemnifies a claim against you, all rights concerning how to run the action transfer to the Insurance company (under “subrogation”).

Another way of looking at it is that by turning the tables on fraudulent Plaintiffs and entrapping them such as in the above instance, the punitive nature of a costs award and the opprobrium it brings will deter otherwise dishonest Plaintiffs from bringing bogus actions, thereby bringing overall premiums down in the long run.

Theoretically.
 
Last edited:
Páid said:
Do they not have to file a defence? Surely something as important as CCTV evidence (and central to their defence) would need to have been mentioned and entered into evidence?
Click to expand...
Yes, they need to file a Defence.

But there is no requirement to disclose the existence of such evidence early in the pleadings.

A Defence is merely a document which denies the Plaintiff’s claim. The evidence comes during the hearing, usually from witnesses.

Now, maybe the existence of such CCTV evidence could have been uncovered during Discovery, but Discovery is not always availed of in litigation.
 
SparkRite said:
But the case wasn't heard...............

From the 'Indo'.........
Click to expand...
"When Mr Morgan’s case was called for hearing before Judge Berkeley, his legal team informed the court he was withdrawing his claim and offering to pay all of Spar Artane’s legal costs."


Both barristers were in court and legal costs were awarded. Does it make any difference if the case was heard or not? Maybe if it went on for more than a day.
 
At the end of the day the loser is the shop owner who will have a higher premium (ied be stunned if they don't). The legal eagles won't lose at this point.

Having said that the outcome for dodgy claimants is excellent - they wreak it for everyone.
 
BoscoTalking said:
At the end of the day the loser is the shop owner who will have a higher premium (ied be stunned if they don't). The legal eagles won't lose at this point.

Having said that the outcome for dodgy claimants is excellent - they wreak it for everyone.
Click to expand...
No basis for this statement re an increase in premium.
 
The shop owner must have been fully aware of the strategy as he supplied the CCTV.

If it's an owner of multiple Spar shops , he would be happy to let it run so it would deter other fraudulent claims.

Brendan
 
In an ideal world, this would be escalated into criminal charges of attempted fraud.
 
Brian C said:
No basis for this statement re an increase in premium.
Click to expand...
Ok so even assuming the insurer doesn't increase the premium (big assumption in my opinion), the shop owner can't switch insurer while there's an outstanding claim, so they can't do the yearly shop around for the best premium.
 
Coldwarrior said:
Ok so even assuming the insurer doesn't increase the premium (big assumption in my opinion), the shop owner can't switch insurer while there's an outstanding claim, so they can't do the yearly shop around for the best premium.
Click to expand...
In fairness, there may well be an increase in premium for the shop owner, but that all depends on the type of policy and the level of overall claims in a year, the state of the market etc.

I claimed on a bespoke professional indemnity policy recently (I’m being sued) and the following year, the premium went up by upwards of 20% for me and other parties similarly insured by the same company, but whether it had anything to do with the claim against me, I don’t know, though I suspect so.

I don’t think there is anything preventing you from switching insurer come renewal time, though you would have to disclose the existence of the claim to any new insurance provider.
 
I've no time for such fraudsters, but there is something a bit off to me in spinning anyone along in Court proceedings, with the objective of increasing legal costs. Does this not breach the 'clean hands' principle about coming to Court?
 
RetirementPlan said:
I've no time for such fraudsters, but there is something a bit off to me in spinning anyone along in Court proceedings, with the objective of increasing legal costs. Does this not breach the 'clean hands' principle about coming to Court?
Click to expand...
The equitable maxim “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands” applies to the plaintiff. In this case, the dishonest one.

Once he brings a fraudulent claim, he (rightly) leaves himself open to whatever just desserts come his way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top