Law student left with catastrophic injuries after car driven by banned motorist mounted footpath gets €8m damages

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/law-student-left-with-catastrophic-injuries-after-car-driven-by-banned-motorist-mounted-footpath-gets-8m-damages-41281654.html

By Tim Healy

A law student left with catastrophic injuries when he was hit by a car driven by a banned motorist who mounted a footpath has settled his High Court action for damages against the driver for €8m.

Francis Dhala (21), Rathmore Drive, Tyrrelstown, Dublin, was one of two pedestrians struck by Paul Connolly who mounted a footpath near Coolmine Railway Station on May 1, 2018.

In May 2019, Connolly (39), formerly from Kildare, with an address at Cherryfield Walk, Hartstown, Dublin, was jailed for eight-and-a-half years, with the last 18 months suspended, for dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm and driving under the influence of drugs. He was the subject of a 25-year driving ban at the time.

The Circuit Court heard Connolly admitted taking drugs the night before the incident when he was driving his child to school and undertook a line of traffic stopped at the railway barrier. He suddenly started swerving and mounted the path before hitting Mr Dhala and a 54-year-old man, who was also badly injured.

Connolly, who initially told gardaí he thought he had hit a bush, did a U-turn and “calmly” drove from the scene with a smashed window but was followed by another motorist who kept in touch with gardaí until they intercepted Connolly.

Mr Dhala sued Connolly and the car owner Mairead McGrath, whose address was given as c/o Allianz plc, Merrion Road, Dublin, claiming negligence and various breaches of duty

Liability was conceded and the case came before Mr Justice Michael Hanna on Tuesday for ruling after he was told a settlement of €8m had been agreed.

The judge described Mr Dhala’s recovery from his injuries as inspirational in what was a “horrifying tale of injury”.

Bernard McDonagh SC with Jonathan Kilfeather SC, said it was a tragic case in which Mr Dhala was struck by the car on what was his last day in college where he had been a first year law student.

He was walking on the pavement with his sister, who was also studying law but was not struck, and was taken to the local hospital in a comatose state before being transferred to Beaumont Hospital where initially his prognosis was poor.

Counsel said he suffered a catastrophic brain injury, effectively where the brain rotates in the skull, as well as fractured hip, rib and leg injuries.

He spent a year in hospital including nearly six months in the National Rehabilitation Hospital.

Despite this, Mr McDonagh said, his client had made a remarkable recovery from what was a life threatening brain injury though still suffers from severe cognitive, executive function and memory losses.

All the medical reports said he suffered a lifelong injury and needs care for the rest of his life.

The defence had taken issue over future care needs because of his recovery but, counsel said, the case comes well within previous case law on the matter.

While there had been a remarkable physical recovery, the psychological factor remained an issue in the case.

The settlement included €4m for future care and €2m for loss of earnings and his legal team recommended the settlement offer, counsel said.

There would be an application to have him made a ward of court because of his doctors’ concerns about his future ability to manage his own affairs.

Mr Justice Hanna said “all plaudits” must go to Mr Dhala whose remarkable recovery was “absolutely staggering and shows obviously there is a fine spirit there and will make the best of what he has”.

Asked by the judge about Mr Dhala’s future, Mr McDonagh said he hopes to do a Masters and go on to be a solicitor. He has very supportive parents and was from a high achieving family with his sister having completed her law degree and his father, who is a lecturer, now working for the UN.

The judge said he had no hesitation in approving the settlement in what was a “tale of horrifying injury and inspirational effort and ability by Francis who has done astonishing things to make his lot as good as it might be”.

One could only hope that he will “in turn offer hope to many people in the situation of catastrophic injuries that they can go on to achieve things”, he added.

He also approved certain payouts from the settlement, including €395,000 for medical bills.

My husband died. Then his father asked me to pay back a £200,000 house deposit.

A sudden death can cause extra heartache when money is involved. Imogen Tew hears both sides of a family’s story

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nic-died-then-his-dad-asked-me-to-pay-back-a-200-000-house-deposit-s77x8zprm

January 29 2022, The Sunday Times

The partner’s story

Things did not go to plan on Alex and Nic’s first date.

Alex Delaney, a 24-year-old who worked for a charity in London, had agreed to meet Nic Infante, a 29-year-old software developer, in Greenwich. But on that day in 2008 the London Underground was down, so they ended up meeting in the concrete carbuncle that is Canada Water bus station in east London. It didn’t matter — they hit it off instantly.

A year later Alex and Nic moved in together. They bought their first home, a two-bedroom flat in Hackney in 2011 thanks to money from Nic’s father, Neri.

In 2013 Alex and Nic tied the knot at a ceremony in London. They dearly wanted children and in 2017 Alex started IVF treatment. It was a happy marriage, and life was good.

On January 7, 2018, they had just returned home from visiting Neri, who lives in Brazil, when Nic suddenly became breathless. Alex called an ambulance and Nic was taken to hospital. Within 45 minutes he had died from a pulmonary embolism.

“I spent 18 months in complete shock, my whole world collapsed,” said Alex. “I used to worry about him being hit by a lorry when cycling or whatever, but you just don’t worry about things like this happening when someone’s only 39.”

When Alex began the arduous process of sorting out Nic’s affairs, informing the banks of his death and pausing the mortgage payments, her life started unravelling further. Her dad, who was helping with the admin, found a private loan agreement between Nic and Neri for the money used to buy the flat. It said that the £250,000 would need to be repaid in the event of Nic’s death or divorce.

“My dad turned and said, ‘Did you realise this was going to have to be paid back?’ I was completely shocked, I had no idea the money was a loan,” Alex said.

“As the mortgage was in Nic’s name, and I couldn’t afford to get the same mortgage with my salary, I wasn’t able to afford a property without that money.”

During a family meeting to discuss funeral arrangements, Nic’s father said that, as per the terms of the loan, he expected the money to be returned.

“I sent my dad in as a negotiator because I couldn’t cope with it. My dad told Neri that if he followed through with it he would probably ruin his relationship with me, and Neri agreed to knock down the loan by a fifth,” Alex said.

“By this time, I just wanted to be separate from it all. Everyone was in shock, but that’s not how you have that conversation.”

Alex moved out of the flat about a year after Nic’s death, paying off the mortgage and returning the money to Neri. With a death-in-service benefit from Nic’s work and help from her family, she was able to buy a similar flat near by.

She now runs Lemons.Life, a will-writing business for women, trying to ensure that others have the conversations she and Nic never did. “I had a very happy marriage, but I was incredibly naive,” Alex, now 37, said. “It’s hard to have these conversations, but people have to bite the bullet. You don’t want these shocks in the worst possible moment of your life.”

The father’s story

When Neri’s only son, Nic, needed help to buy his first home, Neri was more than happy to oblige.

Nic had been with his girlfriend, Alex, for three years. They had been living together for two years, and while Neri was delighted Nic had fallen in love with Alex and welcomed her to the family, it was still a relatively short time in his eyes.

Neri, 83, who lives in Brazil, wanted to help Nic with money and had discussed how to structure this during regular visits to the UK. He decided that a loan was the right way to go about it.

“The financing of the flat Nic wanted to buy was set up as an interest-free loan because it was cheaper than a mortgage, it was tax-efficient, and it protected my son’s interests if he should split up, divorce or die,” said Neri. “Nic and Alex weren’t married at the time, but even if he had separated or divorced, the amount I lent him would not be divided with his partner.”

The loan agreement was drawn up by Neri’s solicitor and he and Nic discussed the details over Skype. It was not until Nic died that Neri found out that Alex did not know about the loan.

“It was a loan I had hoped would never be repaid. I wasn’t aware that Nic hadn’t told Alex, but that was his choice,” said Neri. “I never understood why Alex was disappointed when I requested the return of most of the loan [£200,000], instead of being grateful for my donation of the balance. Couples split up so frequently and easily in today’s world. Alex has now remarried, so I feel justified.”

He added: “Nic was my only son, so he was going to inherit most of my assets. Had he needed more, I would have happily given him, or ‘lent’ him, what could be envisaged as inheritance.”

Neri, who is Italian, said he had always hoped Nic and Alex would have a long and happy life together and had thrown them a “lovely” wedding party at his family’s villa in Tuscany.

The problem

Family wealth is increasingly being used to help young people on to the property ladder. The property website Zoopla says that two thirds of parents have helped their child to buy a home, with the average contribution hitting £32,440.

Many see this as their child’s inheritance being handed down early, when they need it the most, and emotions can run high if the money is later disputed when the couple divorce, or one dies. This can leave partners potentially on the hook for thousands of pounds at an already stressful time. In most cases, the bank will want assurances that any money gifted to a child is in fact a gift, rather than a loan. Families may have to sign a “gift form” to relinquish any claim they have on the property. This can complicate matters in the case of divorce or death because the family will have no right to claim that money back.

Tim Snaith, a partner at the law firm Winckworth Sherwood, said: “Whenever you look to buy a property with someone (whether as an investment, as friends, as a couple or a married couple), you should always consider what would happen if one of them died. If there is gifted or loaned money from either family, this should be taken into account.” In Alex and Nic’s scenario, Alex would be unlikely to have any legal claim to the money because Neri and Nic had drawn up a loan agreement.

If there is no such agreement in place and no instructions in a person’s will, what happens to the property on death depends on whether the couple are married and how the property is owned.

If the property is solely in one person’s name, the couple are married and there is no will, the property would automatically pass to the surviving spouse under intestacy rules (which come into play if there is no will). All personal property, belongings and the first £270,000 of the estate passes to the deceased’s spouse. The spouse also gets half the remaining estate, with the other half split between any children or grandchildren.

If they are not married, the property would pass to any surviving parents if there was no will to say otherwise.

If the property is jointly owned, what happens depends on whether the property is owned as tenants in common or joint tenants. For tenants in common, each person owns a set share of the property, and what happens to their share is according to their will or the intestacy rules in the absence of a will.

If the couple owned a property as joint tenants, they own the whole property together, so if one dies, the other becomes the sole owner, regardless of any wills or intestacy rules.

“We are urging clients all the time to talk about this,” said Zahra Pabani, family law partner at the law firm Irwin Mitchell. She said that parents wanting to protect their wealth “down the bloodline” needed to be clear. If the money is given as a gift, by law it stays a gift, regardless of divorce or death.

Parents could ask that the couple sign a postnuptial agreement, if they are married, or a prenuptial agreement if they are due to be, which lays out what happens to the parents’ gift if the couple divorce. You could also ask your child to make sure their will reflects your wishes for the money if they died.

Snaith said: “If you feel strongly that this is family money, you should warn your child and their partner about the terms of the gift and get them to write a will. People never think that people are going to die or divorce, but we’re always saying ‘please do it, please sort it’, because we know it does happen.”

The couples using the gifted or loaned money could also protect themselves and their partners by taking out life insurance to cover the amount that the parents contributed. This can relieve the pressure on the spouse and make sure everyone feels they have been treated fairly.

England: Woman tricked into relationship with spycop awarded £230k payout

An activist who was deceived into a long-term intimate and sexual relationship with an undercover Metropolitan Police officer has been awarded a nearly £230,000 payout by a tribunal.

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/england-woman-tricked-into-relationship-with-spycop-awarded-ps230k-payout

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) ruled that Kate Wilson should be paid a sum of £229,471.96 by the Metropolitan Police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).

The tribunal previously ruled last September that Ms Wilson’s rights under Articles 3 (freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (discrimination) of the ECHR had been violated as a result of the relationship.

Undercover police officer Mark Kennedy, using the name Mark Stone, “grossly debased, degraded and humiliated [Ms Wilson] and interfered with her bodily integrity”, the tribunal said.

In a statement, Ms Wilson said: “It is important to note the IPT compensation is not about the relationship I was deceived into by Mark Kennedy. That was settled in a civil claim back in 2017.

“It is compensation for the parts of the claim that the police denied right up to the end – how complicit Mark’s managers were, and the role of five other undercover officers in violating my political rights, and the fact that they dragged out those denials for 10 years.

“The finding that these operations breached the rights to freedom of expression and assembly and were unlawful amounts to a long overdue recognition that spying on the protest movement is political policing and has no place in a democratic society.

“It is important because it goes beyond the scandal of undercover officers deceiving women into intimate relationships. Violating our political rights was the entire reason for these deployments and thousands of people will have had their political rights violated in this way.”