- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Morrissey v Starrus Eco Holdings Ltd and Anor (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
On 30 November 2021 at approximately 15:30 the Plaintiff was driving a leased taxi in the centre of The City with a passenger and was stationary at a red light when his vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Defendant. Both drivers inspected the vehicles, spoke amicably and left the scene. The Plaintiff alleged personal injuries and the vehicle lessor (a third party) claimed material damage and loss of use. The Plaintiff continued to drive the vehicle for a period thereafter and later changed leased vehicles. Two insurance inspections were carried out: one on or about 21 December 2021 and a subsequent inspection in early January 2022. The January inspection showed materially greater damage than the December inspection; the Judge found additional damage was introduced between those inspections but there was no evidence identifying who caused it. The Defendant appealed to the High Court from the Circuit Court decision; Judge Jackson delivered judgment on 23 March 2026.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff's claim should be dismissed pursuant to section 26(1) or section 26(2) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004 (i.e. whether the Plaintiff gave or caused to be given false or misleading evidence knowing it to be false or misleading).
- Whether the Plaintiff's alleged injuries are inconsistent with the minimal impact of the collision and, if so, how that affects credibility and quantum.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' Arguments
- The defence contended the Plaintiff's claim was tainted and should be dismissed under section 26(1) or section 26(2) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004.
- Alternatively, the defence argued the collision was a minimal impact event and the claimed injuries were inconsistent with the vehicle damage, raising credibility issues.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff submitted the section 26 allegations were unfounded and sought aggravated damages and/or costs if the allegations failed.
- The Plaintiff claimed injury to neck and shoulder with significant impact upon day-to-day activities and sporting pursuits, sought modest special and general damages (assessed by the court under the Personal Injuries Guidelines) and did not claim loss of earnings.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| O'Sullivan v. Brozda and Ors [2022] IECA 163 | The approach to section 26 applications: onus, materiality, threshold, opportunity to be heard, and injustice exception. | The Judge applied these principles, noting the onus rests with the Defendant, that alleged falsehoods must be materially significant, and concluded section 26 was not established on the evidence. |
| Carmello v. Casey [2007] IEHC 362 (Peart J.) | Described the provision as "draconian" and emphasised that threshold requirements must be clearly established. | The Judge invoked the characterisation to emphasise the high threshold for dismissal under section 26 and the need for clear proof, applying that caution in assessment. |
| Khalid v. Davis and Anor [2022] IEHC 519 | Authority considered on failure to disclose prior accidents and relevance to section 26-type inquiries. | The Judge distinguished Khalid on its facts and found it was not analogous to the present case. |
| Vesey v. Bus Eireann [2001] 4 IR 192 | Supreme Court authority on cases "entangled as a result of lies and misrepresentations" by a plaintiff. | The Judge found Vesey distinguishable, noting those cases involved systematic misrepresentations by the plaintiff which was not established here. |
| Meehan v. Shawcove Ltd [2022] IECA 208 | Authority relevant to assessment of damages (quantum guidance). | The Judge referred to Meehan when assessing general damages and determining the appropriate banding and award. |
| Somers v. Commissioner of An Garda Siochana and Others [2025] IEHC 388 | Authority relied upon for quantification principles and guidance on awards. | The Judge cited Somers as part of the basis for assessing the level and duration of injury and quantifying general damages. |
| Doyle v. Donovan [2020] IEHC 11 | Authority concerning the award of aggravated damages and the factors justifying such awards. | The Judge considered Doyle on aggravated damages and concluded the facts did not justify an award of aggravated damages here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Judge analysed factual, medical and inspection evidence and applied the section 26 statutory test as guided by O'Sullivan v. Brozda and related authorities. Key findings included:
- The collision was a minimal impact rear-end collision; photographic evidence taken at the scene matched the Plaintiff's account of minimal vehicle damage.
- Two later inspections showed that additional damage was introduced between the December 2021 inspection and the January 2022 inspection; there was no evidence identifying who inflicted that additional damage.
- The additional vehicle damage and related third-party insurer payments appeared to be actions of the vehicle owner (a third party) and not the Plaintiff; although the Plaintiff was likely aware of the inspections and additional damage, there was no evidence he caused or benefitted from it.
- Applying section 26(1) and (2), the Judge held the defence bore the onus to prove dishonest falsehoods of material significance; the Judge was not satisfied that the statutory threshold of dishonesty by the Plaintiff was established.
- Medical reports consistently diagnosed soft tissue injuries to the cervical spine, right shoulder and elbow; radiology showed pre-existing degenerative changes. The Judge found the Plaintiff's functional limitations were at the lower end of the scale and not as severe as some reports suggested, and accepted a dominant neck injury lasting approximately 12–24 months.
- On quantum the Judge applied relevant authorities and the Personal Injuries Guidelines to classify injuries and assess awards; the Judge refused to award aggravated damages after considering Doyle v. Donovan.
Holding and Implications
The Court held that section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004 was not established and that the Plaintiff should recover damages.
Direct consequences: the Plaintiff's personal injury claim was allowed; general damages of €22,000 were awarded (€15,000 for the dominant neck injury and €7,000 for secondary shoulder/elbow injury), special damages of €985 were allowed, making a total award of €22,985. The Judge indicated the Plaintiff should receive Circuit Court costs and, as to the appeal, made no order as to costs (each party partially successful) with liberty to mention costs within 28 days. The opinion records no new legal precedent being established and confines its analysis to application of existing authorities.
Alert