AB v MW [No.1]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conor Dignam
• Judgment Date: 01 May 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 242
• Docket Number: Record No. H.C.A. 2024.8

Between

AB

Plaintiff/Respondent

and

MW

Defendant/Appellant

[2025] IEHC 242

Record No. H.C.A. 2024.8

THE HIGH COURT

Personal injuries – Assessment of damages – False evidence – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the plaintiff had given false or misleading evidence

Facts: The plaintiff, by Personal Injury Summons dated 18 February 2013, sued the defendant for assault, battery, negligence, breach of duty including breach of statutory duty, and trespass to the person on foot of which it is claimed the plaintiff suffered personal injuries, distress, and shock. On 3 June 2014, Judge Linnane in the Dublin Circuit Court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff on foot of the plaintiff’s motion and that the assessment of damages be adjourned to the trial of the action. Judge Linnane’s order was affirmed by Haughton J on 23 February 2015. The matter proceeded in the Circuit Court by way of assessment only. On 17 January 2024, the matter came before Judge Meehan in the Dubin Circuit Court and he made an award of damages. The matter came before the High Court as an assessment of damages. The defendant made an application pursuant to s. 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that she had given false or misleading evidence.

Held by Dignam J that the defendant had failed to establish that the plaintiff knowingly gave false and misleading evidence or caused to be adduced false or misleading evidence, or swore a false and misleading affidavit of verification. Dignam J therefore refused the defendant’s application under s. 26 of the 2004 Act. Dignam J's general approach to the assessment of damages was as follows: the plaintiff was entitled to damages by reason of the trespass to her person; she was also entitled to damages for any physical and psychological injury or financial loss caused to her by the assault; he could not consider aggravated damages arising from the incident itself or events following the assault because there was no specific claim for aggravated damages (though he noted that where factors which may have given rise to aggravated damages contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries they were in any event to be taken into account in the assessment of ordinary compensatory damages); he could consider aggravated damages arising from the manner in which the defence was run (the defendant accepted that Dignam J was entitled to do so); he could have regard to the Book of Quantum in respect of the plaintiff’s physical injuries; and he was not bound to apply the Personal Injuries Guidelines.

Dignam J made an award of €50,868 (€46,500 for general damages (including aggravated damages) and €4368 for special damages) in favour of the plaintiff.

Damages awarded to plaintiff.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Conor Dignam delivered on the 1 ^st day of May 2025

INTRODUCTION

1 . This matter comes before the Court by way of an appeal from the Dublin Circuit Court. It is an assessment of damages in the following circumstances.

2 . As there is reference (albeit very limited) in this judgment to family law proceedings I have anonymised the parties. I will refer to them as the plaintiff and the defendant respectively.

3 . The proceedings arise from an incident which occurred in the plaintiff's crèche on the 4 ^th January 2012. I return to this incident in more detail below but for the moment it is sufficient to note that by Personal Injury Summons dated the 18 ^th February 2013 the plaintiff sued the defendant for assault, battery, negligence, breach of duty including breach of statutory duty, and trespass to the person on foot of which it is claimed the plaintiff suffered personal injuries, distress, and shock. Arising from the same assault, the defendant was convicted of assault causing harm contrary to the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 following a three-day trial before a jury in Dublin Circuit Court in June and July 2013. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended on conditions for a period of three years. This conviction was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal who delivered a written judgment ( The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v MW [2017] IECA 175). The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on the 6 ^th July 2018 ( Director of Public Prosecutions v W [2018] IESCDET 99).

4 . An appearance was entered on the 23 ^rd April 2013 by the defendant in person. The defendant has acted in person throughout the proceedings. He is a qualified barrister with an address in Belfast.

5 . The defendant did not deliver a Defence and on the 18 ^th December 2013 the County Registrar for Dublin made an Order on foot of a motion for judgment in default of Defence extending the time for delivery of same for six weeks.

6 . The defendant did not deliver a Defence within this period and the plaintiff brought a second motion for judgment in default of Defence. The defendant delivered a replying affidavit to this motion. He also brought his own motion to strike out the plaintiff's pleadings ‘for failure to disclose grounds of action for personal injury bill’, to ‘strike out the plaintiff's action on grounds of a fraudulent action under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004’, and to compel replies to particulars. On the 3 ^rd June 2014, Her Honour Judge Linnane in the Dublin Circuit Court refused the defendant's motion and ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff on foot of the plaintiff's motion and that the assessment of damages be adjourned to the trial of the action, with a stay on those provisions for a period of fourteen days to allow the defendant to lodge his Defence. Judge Linnane expressly provided that if the defendant lodged his Defence within fourteen days, the Order for judgment would not come into effect.

7 . This Order was appealed by the defendant and Judge Linnane's Order was affirmed by Haughton J on the 23 ^rd February 2015. No Defence was delivered by the defendant.

8 . The matter therefore proceeded in the Circuit Court by way of assessment only. On the 17 ^th January 2024, the matter came before Judge Meehan in the Dubin Circuit Court and he made an award of damages. The defendant did not appear before Judge Meehan on that date.

9 . The defendant has never sought to have the Orders of Judge Linnane, Haughton J, or Judge Meehan set aside.

10 . Thus, the matter came before this Court as an assessment of damages.

11 . However, at the beginning of this appeal, the defendant submitted that the matter should not be dealt with as an assessment only. Having heard submissions, I ruled that the matter should proceed as an assessment only and said that I would give my reasons as part of my judgment. I therefore do so before dealing with the assessment of damages.

12 . It is necessary to first set out the background in summary form.

BACKGROUND

13 . I do not propose to set all the background out in detail. It is not necessary to do so and, given that there is an underlying dispute between the parents of a child, it is appropriate that there should be the least intrusion in those issues as possible whilst also doing justice between the plaintiff and the defendant. The background is in any event set out in great detail in the narrative contained in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in DPP v MW.

14 . The plaintiff is a crèche/nursery manager. She owns the crèche through a company. The defendant made the point that some of the items of damage claimed relate to this company rather than the plaintiff. I deal with this below.

15 . The defendant's child attended the crèche. It seems that the defendant and his former partner, the child's mother, each collected the child from the crèche on different days. The plaintiff says that at a certain point she was instructed by the child's mother that the child was not to be collected by the defendant.

16 . On the 4 ^th January 2012, the plaintiff received a phone call from the Assistant Manager of the crèche (the plaintiff was in her home office a few minutes from the crèche) telling her that the defendant was at the crèche. The plaintiff says she immediately went around to the crèche and the defendant was sitting in the room where the child was based. The plaintiff's account is that she asked the defendant to come downstairs to the office and the defendant said that he was not leaving without his child. The plaintiff's account is that the defendant pushed her twice in the chest. She describes managing to manoeuvre the defendant out the door of the room whilst leaving the child in the room. The plaintiff and the defendant were then in a corridor immediately outside the room with the door into the room closed behind the plaintiff. The plaintiff described the door as being half glass and the corridor as being a narrow corridor. She said that she had her back to the door and had her hand on the handle of the door. She said the situation escalated quickly with the defendant accusing her of being in cahoots with the child's mother. The plaintiff says that she told a member of staff to call the Gardaí. The plaintiff describes the defendant as banging her arm to dislodge her hand from the handle of the door, and of trying to bite her face and her arm. He then said, according to the plaintiff, that “ I'm going to hurt you”, and then head butted her straight in the face. She said that he then tried to get into the room again and tripped over his feet and fell to the floor. The plaintiff has a condition which causes mobility difficulties. The Gardaí came and took the defendant out. The plaintiff gave evidence of the injuries suffered by her.

17 . The plaintiff also claims that the plaintiff attended at the crèche on a subsequent occasion (the 26 ^th March 2012) and she has previously described him as breaking-in and/or trespassing on that occasion.

18 . The defendant did not give evidence. He cross-examined the...