Latest compo culture award

Here's good advice - be wary of dragging a lawyer into court.

Here's even better advice: don't bring a BS whiplash claim against "a leading personal injuries solicitor"😎

Not only did this lady have her 60K claim thrown out as "opportunistic", costs were awarded against her. That should be routine because our courts constantly reaffirm the principle that costs "follow the event" but somehow in Ireland most bogus PI plaintiffs get a free shot.

And I would be confident that Tormey Solicitors will pursue her vigorously for their fees, not looking to their client, a professional colleague who was "flabbergasted" to receive a PI claim after this very minor incident and after he had already paid 1,000 Euro to replace her dented rear bumper.

That's a double-whammy of negative publicity from an RTÉ staffer no outsider had ever heard of.

Hats off to an honest man!

But you may feel a fool for walking away from a huge payday. A few years ago, you just needed to lie to your GP (or go to your solicitor’s GP who would do the lying for you). Today, however, you would need to play-act until your case was settled or you might end up like Phil Collins (of RTÉ - a drummer with whiplash would be a sorry tale). And to stay off social media. No Tik-Tok dance challenges!

Good luck to the parties trying to recover costs from this plaintiff.

We often hear that people are unable to get justice because of the cost of litigation but those with little or no visible means can bring BS cases to the High Court.

"No foal, no fee" is implicit when a solicitors' firm takes on such cases. Their overall success rate is high enough to cover the wasted effort in the occasional unfortunate cases where the truth is revealed, whether by CCTV or perhaps the whiplash victim's social media exploits, but never, of course, by the evidence of the plaintiff under oath.

No, an interesting feature of her case was that she did not claim the cost of repair but instead claimed the reduction in the value of her car.

It has been a scandalous feature of recent "rear-ending" cases that plaintiffs have been awarded substantial damages for devastating soft-tissue injuries although their car suffered only trivial damage i.e. scratches.

In this case, the plaintiff's claim was not for the cost of repair, which would have involved a survey of the actual damage, but for an alleged loss in re-sale value to a car. Naturally, after the sale of her car it was no longer available for inspection by the other side. If she won her case (i.e. but for the CCTV), her claim for loss of value would spare the judge's blushes in awarding 60K when her car was barely dented. Her solicitors were really excellent, pity they had a fraudster for a client.