McHugh v The Office of the Revenue Commissioners
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice McGovern |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IECA 9 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2019/15 |
| Date | 30 January 2020 |
AND
[2020] IECA 9
McGovern J.
Ní Raifeartaigh J.
Collins J.
Record No. 2019/15
THE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL
Liability – Quantum – Damages – Appellants seeking to appeal against the High Court judge’s findings on both liability and quantum – Whether there was credible evidence to support the liability finding of the trial judge
Facts: The plaintiff/respondent, Ms McHugh, on the 1 September 2014, tripped and fell while crossing a courtyard area adjacent to her place of work at Cranmore in Sligo. In the High Court a full defence was filed and there was a plea of contributory negligence. The incident was captured on CCTV from which it was possible to pinpoint precisely where the respondent fell. The existence of the CCTV footage was an important feature in the case because it established that the place where the respondent claimed to have fallen was not the same as the actual location where she fell. Having heard the evidence over three days, the High Court judge delivered a written judgment on 10 December 2018 in which she found in favour of the respondent awarding her a sum of €80,000 for general damages with a further sum of €78,864 for special damages making in all a total of €158,864. The respondent was also granted an order for costs. The defendants/appellants, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Minister for Social Protection, Ireland and the Attorney General, appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of O’Hanlon J delivered on 10 December 2018, and the order of 21 December 2018 which was perfected on 8 January 2019. The appeal was against the High Court judge’s findings on both liability and quantum. Insofar as quantum was concerned, the appellants complained that the general damages awarded were above the guidelines set out in the Book of Quantum and also on the basis that the judge awarded the respondent’s full claim for loss of earnings in circumstances where she conceded that she took early retirement in 2016 because of a back complaint and not the injury to her thumb which was sustained in the accident. While it was conceded that she may have sustained some injury to her back in the fall, her own surgeon accepted that there were long term changes to her back which were unrelated to the accident. The main thrust of the appeal was against the High Court judge’s finding on liability having regard to what was established from the CCTV footage which was available in evidence.
Held by McGovern J that the trial judge erroneously considered that the evidence satisfied the burden of proof on the respondent in circumstances where the evidence fell far short of doing so, to the extent that it could be said that there was no credible evidence to support the liability finding of the trial judge. In those circumstances, McGovern J held that it was unnecessary to deal with the appeal on quantum.
McGovern J held that the appeal would be allowed.
Appeal allowed.
This is an appeal against a judgment of O'Hanlon J. delivered on 10 December 2018, [2018] IEHC 754, and the order of 21 December 2018 which was perfected on 8 January 2019. The plaintiff/respondent's claim arises out of an accident on the 1 September 2014 when she tripped and fell while crossing a courtyard area adjacent to her place of work at Cranmore in Sligo. In the High Court a full defence was filed and there was a plea of contributory negligence.
The incident was captured on CCTV from which it was possible to pinpoint precisely where the respondent fell. The existence of the CCTV footage was an important feature in the case because it established that the place where the respondent claimed to have fallen was not the same as the actual location where she fell.
Having heard the evidence over three days, the High Court judge delivered a written judgment on 10 December 2018 in which she found in favour of the respondent awarding her a sum of €80,000 for general damages with a further sum of €78,864 for special damages making in all a total of €158,864. The respondent was also granted an order for costs. The High Court judge refused to grant a stay on the award but on an application to Irvine J. in this court on 22 February 2019, a stay was granted until the hearing of this appeal.
A critical finding of the High Court judge is to be found at para. 68 of her judgment when she states:-
“… On the balance of probabilities, the [respondent's] toe snagged consistent with a raised lip of a concrete paver. This was reasonably foreseeable in all the circumstances.”
From this finding the judge determined that the appellant was negligent in failing to ensure that the respondent had safe access to and egress from her place of work and the judge at para. 72 also criticised:-
“… the failure to ensure the design, provision and maintenance of the particular paving concerning [sic] was in a condition which was safe and without risk to health.”
At para. 73 she held that there was movement in the slab which caused the accident.
The appeal is against the High Court judge's findings on both liability and quantum. Insofar as quantum is concerned, the appellant complains that the general damages awarded were above the guidelines set out in the Book of Quantum and also on the basis that the judge awarded the respondent's full claim for loss of earnings in circumstances where she conceded that she took early retirement in 2016 because of a back complaint and not the injury to her thumb which was sustained in the accident. While it was conceded that she may have sustained some injury to her back in the fall, her own surgeon accepted that there were long term changes to her back which were unrelated to the accident.
It is fair to say that the main thrust of the appeal was against the High Court judge's finding on liability having regard to what was established from the CCTV footage which was available in evidence.
The case was pleaded as a trip and fall by reason of the alleged dangerous and defective condition of the courtyard area where the accident occurred. The High Court judge and the members of this court had the benefit of seeing photos of the accident location taken from CCTV footage and/or photos taken some time later, as well as the CCTV footage itself and there was nothing remarkable in those photos or in the CCTV footage about the overall appearance of the surface of the courtyard. The particulars of negligence and breach of duty alleged include permitting the pavement to be laid in an irregular manner and causing, allowing or permitting slabs to be raised relative to adjacent slabs thereby creating a trip hazard. The particulars did not state, in terms, that there was movement in the paving stones. Counsel for the respondent opened the case on the basis that she tripped on a raised edge of a pavement slab illustrated by reference to a number of photographs taken by an engineer, Dr. Mark Jordan. These photographs were taken on the basis of an account of the accident given by the respondent to Dr. Jordan. However, in the course of the trial it was accepted – as a result of the CCTV evidence – that the respondent had given an incorrect account of where the accident occurred. This was accepted by both her and the engineer. Dr. Jordan also recorded that the respondent informed him that she was immediately assisted by a woman, whereas the CCTV footage showed this was not the case. In the course of her evidence, she said that she did not mean by that statement that someone came to her assistance in the context of lifting her up off the ground. She also informed Dr. Jordan that at the time of her fall her mobile phone flew from her pocket, while the CCTV footage shows quite clearly that she was using her phone at the time of her fall. Indeed, the respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial