The Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that she sustained an electric shock from a damaged light switch in a rental property. Extensive inconsistencies between the plaintiff's oral evidence and contemporaneous documentary evidence (emails, employer records, medical records, and photograph metadata) led the Court to decline to accept any of the plaintiff's uncorroborated testimony. The Court also indicated, obiter, that even had the electric shock been established, the claim would have failed because the plaintiff adduced no persuasive evidence that the light switch had gradually deteriorated or that the defendants ought to have known of any defect prior to the alleged incident.
The full text is available to signed-in members.