Keating v Mulligan (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 257 (09 November 2022)

Keating v Mulligan (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 257 (09 November 2022)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find the plaintiff honest and that there was no evidence of dishonesty or material misleading of the court. The subsequent accident was immaterial to the injuries claimed. The s.26 application was wholly unwarranted and improperly pursued, justifying aggravated damages. The damages awarded were not excessive.

Citation
[2022] IECA 257
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Margaret Keating; Defendant/appellant: Martin Mulligan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Injuries, Fraudulent Claims, Aggravated Damages, Section 26 Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, Litigation Misconduct
Tort Law Civil Procedure Personal Injuries Fraudulent Claims Aggravated Damages Section 26 Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 Litigation Misconduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Keating

Plaintiff/respondent

Martin Mulligan

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's failure to disclose a subsequent accident amounted to fraud justifying dismissal under s.26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding aggravated damages against the defendant for the manner in which the s.26 application was pursued
  3. 3 Whether the damages awarded were excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find the plaintiff honest and that there was no evidence of dishonesty or material misleading of the court. The subsequent accident was immaterial to the injuries claimed. The s.26 application was wholly unwarranted and improperly pursued, justifying aggravated damages. The damages awarded were not excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court judgment affirmed
  • Award of €80,000 to plaintiff (including aggravated damages) upheld