A man whose £72,500 (€92,056) damages award was reduced to £30,000 (€38,092) by the Supreme Court after it found he had told "persistent lies in and out of court" has lost his appeal against the rejection of his claims that a law firm negligently handled the damages case.
The three-judge Court of Appeal agreed with a High Court decision dismissing all claims by Patrick Vesey against the law firm Fabian P Cadden & Co over the handling of his case after it came on record for him in mid-1999.
There was no evidence to support his claims of any breach of professional standards, Mr Justice Alan Mahon said.
Mr Vesey had failed to establish, as a matter of probability, the outcome of his personal injuries action was undermined or rendered unsatisfactory because of any professional failure by the respondent firm or of his entire legal team, the judge ruled.
Mr Vesey, of Ballyogan Court, Carrickmines, Co Dublin, had sued Bus Éireann over an accident on September 9th, 1996, in which a bus drove into his stationary car at traffic lights on the Stillorgan Road.
Bus Éireann admitted liability for the incident, but challenged the extent of the injuries and loss alleged by Mr Vesey.
The High Court awarded total damages of £72,500 to Mr Vesey but, when making that award, Mr Justice Richard Johnson said he "has lied to me, he has lied to his own doctors, he has lied to the defendants' doctors.
“The only fact in this case about which I am absolutely certain is that the accident took place and I am only certain of that because the defendants have admitted it.”
While accepting Mr Vesey suffered injuries, he could only speculate as to the extent of those, the judge said.
Appeal
Bus Éireann appealed the award’s amount to the Supreme Court, which reduced it to £30,000.
The Supreme Court found the High Court had not assessed damages on a correct basis.
However, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said the trial judge had faced a very difficult task in deciding what should be awarded to a plaintiff who was undoubtedly entitled to some award but who had "made the exercise all but impossible by persistent lies in and out of court".
The difficulties revolved around establishing the precise physical injuries and disability referable to the accident, he said.
Assessment of the injuries was complicated because Mr Vesey had had at least four previous accidents, he said.
The judge set aside as “largely speculative” the original £35,000 award for future loss of earnings, saying Mr Vesey almost entirely failed to adduce any credible evidence in that regard.
He also reduced from £30,000 to £15,000 the award for general damages, after finding Mr Vesey contradicted himself in relation to his “extremely sporadic” history of working and his pre-accident medical condition.
The evidence did not support any psychiatric injury and indicated that the accident had resulted in only modest physical injury, the judge said.
While finding Mr Vesey’s evidence was “unreliable” regarding loss of earnings between the accident and the date of the trial, the judge awarded £7,500 (€9,523) in that regard, plus £7,500 special damages.
