International DJ Chloe Caillet hit by falling bricks while checking phone outside London cafe handed huge court payout – UK Times

An international DJ star hit by a lump of falling brickwork as she checked her phone outside a London cafe has been handed a £90,000 costs and compensation payout.

Electronic music star Chloe Caillet was injured when she was hit by a falling brick cornice outside the Kipferl Cafe, in Golborne Road, North Kensington, in June 2018.

The brickwork only missed the now 33-year-old’s head because she was leaning forward looking at her phone when she was struck, but the DJ suffered injuries to her neck, shoulder and foot.

She went on to sue the building owners, O’Hare Holdings Ltd, for nearly £100,000 compensation, initially saying that the accident had prevented her from working for six months.

However, she had to deny lying about her claim after allegations that she had worked on several continents during that time, including attending the Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert.

Following a trial at the Mayor’s and City County Court, recorder Karl King has now cleared Ms Caillet of dishonesty and handed Ealing-based O’Hare – whose directors are Damian and Marina O’Hare – a bill for nearly £90,000, comprising about £14,000 compensation and £75,000 on account towards her lawyers’ bills.

The court heard Ms Caillet is a DJ, producer and multi-instrumentalist, who has played at some of the most renowned clubs in the world, as well as soundtracking catwalk shows and releasing her own music.

Although born in Paris, she has enjoyed a jet-set life, having been based at various times in New York, Bristol and Ibiza, and was living in Kensal Rise, northwest London, when her accident happened.

According to court documents, she was injured when “without warning, a section of brick cornice on the front of the building fell and landed on the claimant”.

She said she suffered soft-tissue injuries to her left shoulder and knee, back injuries, bruising and abrasions to her legs, feet and hands, as well as a host of psychiatric aftereffects.

She claimed to have been left suffering with dizziness, sleep disturbance and bad dreams, anxiety and memory impairment, and – claiming damages for lost earnings – said in pre-trial documents that she had been unable to work for six months.

Opening the case, her barrister Philip Grundy said Ms Caillet had been “fortunate” as the fact that she was looking at her phone meant she avoided being hit squarely on the head.

“She maintains that this was a clearly frightening event and she was fortunate not to be worse off as a result,” he said.

Lawyers for O’Hare admitted liability for the accident, but accused her of “fundamental dishonesty” after an investigation into her social media accounts showed her at events all around the world during the crucial six months.

Evidence put before the judge during the trial showed her “relentless self-promotion” as she appeared at events on “several continents,” said O’Hare barrister, Nick Grimshaw.

Among others, she appeared at Burning Man, a music and arts festival in the Nevada desert in August to September that year, at a magazine launch and pop-up street events in New York in September, an event for Burberry in October and the opening night of an Andy Warhol exhibition in November, defence documents disclosed.

“The defendant accepts that the claimant sustained soft tissue injuries in the accident,” he told the judge.

“However, the defendant’s case is that the claim for loss of earnings is fundamentally dishonest.

“The claimant returned to work as a DJ very soon after the accident and performed internationally at numerous high-profile venues throughout the six months for which loss of earnings are claimed.”

However, Ms Caillet denied the accusation and said her “not accurate” answer to questions in pre-trial documents stemmed from a “misunderstanding”, as she believed she was being asked about her ability to perform as a DJ in the same way she did pre-accident, as opposed to less strenuous work, which amounted more to promotional activities.

Giving evidence, she told the judge that she accepted the answer she gave was inaccurate, but insisted it was due to her “misunderstanding” of what she was being asked.

She said it stemmed from the use of the word “perform”, which she took to mean as part of a “front-facing” DJ set, rather than a promotional appearance at a fashion event.

“At the time when I read the question, I misunderstood what it entailed in terms of ‘performance’,” she said.

“These types of work I was conducting were passive types of work,” she said, sometimes involving “pre-recorded playlists or sets” or just being there to be photographed for publicity purposes.

None of the events which took place involved people buying tickets specifically to see her play, until she returned to genuine performance with a night in Paris in January 2019, she added.

Her appearance at Burning Man had been unpaid, court documents disclosed, and came after she attended because she had a pre-bought ticket.

Giving judgment, Recorder King said that, although it was incorrect for Ms Caillet to have said she didn’t work for six months post-accident, he did not find her to have been dishonest.

“I conclude that, on balance, the claimant did genuinely suffer from the orthopaedic injuries caused by the accident and some exacerbation during the period of at least six months,” he said.

“However, I am not satisfied that the claimant’s symptoms led to the claimant being unable to work for the six months until January 2019.

“Nor am I satisfied that it is established that the injuries caused by the accident led to a downturn in income, as is claimed by the claimant.

“I am satisfied that, considering the evidence before me, the true position was that, although the claimant had ongoing symptoms for six months and beyond, she did return to work after approximately three months.”

However, he said he could not rule out Ms Caillet’s explanation that, when answering questions about her ability to work, she misunderstood what she was being asked.

“I cannot disregard, nor do I find implausible, that when it comes to answering the questions, the claimant’s belief may have led to her misdirecting herself as to what she was being called on to address her mind to in constructing the answers,” he said.

“I am not satisfied that the claimant’s view was not honestly held or was itself unreasonable.

“I am not satisfied that there was, indeed, any intent to deceive.”

He awarded Ms Caillet about £14,000 in compensation for the injuries she suffered and in reimbursement of sums she paid for therapy and medication after the accident.

However, he refused her claims for more than £60,000 in damages for lost earnings.

O’Hare Holdings was also ordered to cover Ms Caillet’s lawyers’ bills for the case, with £75,000 to be paid up front pending a full assessment of the final total.