‘Idiosyncratic’ man like a character from opera

A High Court judge has described a volleyball coach who sued over injuries suffered in a road accident as an “unforgettably idiosyncratic” litigant reminiscent of the baritone sellers of popular medicine in operas by Italian composer, Gaetano Donizetti.

Abdulwhab Mishtaba was the “most unusual” plaintiff he had come across in 29 years as a judge, said Mr Justice Michael Moriarty. His evidence was “unforgettable”, given in a “lordly and swashbuckling” fashion, while carrying medical instruments.

Because the plaintiff gave unsatisfactory answers to questions and had not mitigated his losses, the judge said he was limiting damages essentially for soft tissue injuries. He awarded €15,000, plus costs on the Circuit Court scale, and refused the defence application for a stay on his orders.

The judge earlier rejected defence arguments the plaintiff’s evidence was false and misleading, such as entitled the court to award no damages. This plaintiff was a “fantasist” on some matters rather than “a shrewd and calculating knave”, he said.

The plaintiff had sued over injuries suffered in a road accident on the Dock Road, Limerick, on January 27, 2012, when travelling as a front-seat passenger, wearing his seatbelt, in a car driven by Aimal Daudzay, Westbourne Holiday Hostel, Courtbrack Avenue, Dock Road. It was claimed a car, owned by AAA Car Rentals Ltd, Lower Mallow St, Limerick, and driven by Mary Susan Barry, Kidbroke Park Road, London, collided with the passenger side of the car in which the plaintiff was travelling. The plaintiff sued the rental company, Ms Barry and Mr Daudzay.

Liability was admitted and the matter was before the High Court for assessment of damages only.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Moriarty said the defendants had argued that Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, permitting refusal of damages when a court is satisfied a plaintiff knowingly gave false and misleading evidence, applied to this case.

While “not satirising or trivialising” the plaintiff, his evidence put the court in mind of the baritone sellers of medicine popularised in operas by Donizetti and others, the judge said. Much of his evidence was “disjointed” and “time-wasting”.

The judge was not satisfied that, however “bizarre and melodramatic” his testimony, the plaintiff’s claim fell under Section 26.