WHEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND ONLINE POSTS UNDERMINE THE CLAIMANT’S CASE: FACEBOOK POSTS ON PLAYING RUGBY ARE FOUND TO BE BINDING

Many cases emphasise the importance of social media in litigation. It has become an essential tool in the armoury of many litigators. An example can be seen in the judge of Mr Justice Mould in Wye Valley NHS Trust v Murphy [2024] EWHC 1912 (KB).

WEBINAR ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER: 1ST OCTOBER 2024

This webinar looks at the ways in  social media is used in the courts and in personal injury cases in particular. It then looks at the ways in which PI lawyers can use social media as a resource to keep up to date in both law and procedure.  Booking details are available here.

• The use of social media in the courts and how it is being deployed as evidence
• Examining the case law relating to how social media impacts upon both liability, damages and credibility
• How LinkedIn destroyed a witness (and could destroy yours)
• Your client’s social media profile
• Twitter could leave your client bitter
• Facebook in the courts
• Social media and credibility
• What can you tell your client about social media?
• A social media strategy for a personal injury lawyer

THE CASE

The NHS Trust brought committal proceedings against Mr. Murphy. He had previously brought an action for clinical negligence against the Trust.  He had claimed for damages exceeding £580,642.91 which included a substantial claim for loss of earnings. There was evidence that he was working for a large part of the period he was claiming damages for. Further there was evidence that he had returned to playing rugby. The Trust pleaded fundamental dishonesty in its defence.  Mr Murphy did not turn up at the trial of his personal injury trial, his solicitors having come off the record.   The trial judge heard evidence from witnesses and found that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. He ordered that Mr. Murphy pay costs on the indemnity basis.

THE COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS

The Trust then brought committal proceedings against Mr. Murphy.  Here we look, in particular, at the role social media and online posts played in the evidence gathering process.

FACEBOOK ENTRIES AND THE RUGBY CLUB’S WEBSITE

(1) Mr Murphy told four medical experts (Mr Kurer, Dr Haynes, Dr Jenkins and Mr Limb) that he was unable to work and had been unable to work since the accident in March 2017.

(2) The Particulars of Claim, which were verified by a statement of truth signed by Mr Murphy’s legal representative on his behalf, stated that Mr Murphy was no longer able to work as a builder and had been unable to work since the index events.

(3) The Preliminary Schedule of Loss, which was verified by a statement of truth signed by Mr Murphy’s legal representative on his behalf, claimed full loss of earnings from six months after the surgery, when it was stated that he would have returned to work but for the negligence, and gave no credit for any earnings received. A sum of £108,444.78 was claimed for past loss of earnings and £356,562.50 for future loss of earnings.

(4) In fact, Mr Murphy had returned to work by May 2018, when he posted pictures on Facebook of a ‘few jobs done lately’. In July 2019 he was appointed sole director of Sanctuary Supplements Limited, a business selling nutritional supplements used by weightlifters.

(2) The Particulars of Claim and the Preliminary Schedule of Loss stated that Mr Murphy was unable to play rugby.

 

(3) In fact, a report of a rugby match in the Ross Gazette on 18 October 2017 referred to ‘some dogged forward play thanks to Sean Murphy.’ He was referred to in further match reports on 21 February 2018 and 7 February 2019. He was also listed on team sheets and or referred to in match reports posted on Facebook for Ross RFC on 12 November 2017, 2 November 2018, 11 January 2019, 25 January 2019, 6 March 2019, 14 March 2019 and 30 March 2019. He attended Gloucester Royal Hospital on 27 November 2017 due a head injury sustained in a rugby scrum.

1. 1. Mr Hansen has produced as exhibits to his affidavit certain local press reports and entries from social media which are said to demonstrate that Mr Murphy returned to playing rugby by October 2017 at the latest, that is to say long before he was first interviewed by Mr Kurer on 29 October 2018.

 

 

1. 1. The earliest report is taken from the website of Ross Rugby Football Club. It provides a match report of a game played between Ross 2nds and Hucclecote 2nds in late March 2017. Sean Murphy is mentioned as having played in Ross 2nds’ front row on that day.

 

 

1. 1. The next report is also taken from the Ross RFC website. It reports a match played on 12 November 2017 between Ross 2nds and Tewkesbury 2nds. The Ross 2nds front row is reported as including Sean Murphy, and is said to have “bullied their opposite numbers for the entire game”.

 

 

1. 1. In paragraph 12 of his affirmation, Mr Limb draws attention to Mr Murphy’s medical records, which includes a note of Mr Murphy having been seen by his GP on 27 November 2017, said to be due to his having suffered a head injury whilst playing rugby on the previous weekend.

 

 

1. 1. There is then a match report taken from the website of the Ross Gazette dated 7 February 2019 of a rugby game played between Ross 2nds and Tenbury 2nds. Sean Murphy is again mentioned as having played in the Ross 2nds’ front row during that game.

 

 

1. Social media posts by Ross RFC on 11 January 2019, 25 January 2019, 8 March 2019, 14 March 2019 and 30 March 2019 all record Sean Murphy as being selected to play for Ross 2nds in rugby games on or around those dates.

MORE ON FACEBOOK “FEW JOBS DONE LATELY”

The CLL Facebook posts include one dated 11 May 2018 which stated “Few jobs done lately”. On 19 July 2018, there was a post from CLL stating “Raised decking job in western”. On 19 July 2018 a post stated “Tarmac drive and fence in Hereford”. On 24 July 2018 a post stated “Tarmac drive Hereford”. On 3 August 2019 a post stated “Another happy customer. Tarmac drive Hereford”.

1. 1. Mr Bradley pointed out that none of these posts by CLL was direct evidence of Mr Murphy actually undertaking any work, let alone heavy building work. Moreover, Mr Kurer records Mr Murphy as having stated that he had been able to undertake a few light duty building jobs. It was incorrect for the Trust and for Mr Hansen to assert that Mr Murphy had told “all four medical experts” that “he was unable to work and had not been able to work since the accident”.

1. The Trust also relied on evidence that on 28 June 2019, Mr Murphy applied to Companies House to set up a company called Sanctuary Supplements Ltd [‘SSL’] and thereafter ran a business selling supplements which had its own Facebook page. Mr Hansen exhibited the documents which attested to the formation and registration of SSL. A  Facebook post dated 8 January 2020 gave Mr Murphy’s home address as the address for SSL supplements store. SSL was incorporated on 1 July 2019 with Mr Murphy named as SSL’s sole director.

THE RESULT…

1. 1. I find the allegations of contempt made by the Trust against Sean Murphy to have been proved to the criminal standard of proof.

1. 1. Sean Murphy is in contempt of court in that he has interfered with the due administration of justice by giving false information to four medical experts who provided reports to the court.

1. 1. Sean Murphy is in contempt of court in that he made false statements in documents verified by a statement of truth, namely the Particulars of Claim and Preliminary Schedule of Loss.

1. 1. The false information was that since and by reason of his injury and surgery in 2017 –

(1) He was no longer able to work.

(2) He was no longer able to play rugby.

(3) He had significantly reduced strength in his left arm.

1. In each case and on each occasion, Sean Murphy gave that false information knowing that it was false, without any honest belief that it was true and knowing that it was likely to interfere with the course of justice.