DJ Accused of Dishonesty in £100,000 Injury Claim
A well-traveled DJ is facing serious allegations of dishonesty in a legal battle over a £100,000 damages claim. The DJ, Chloe Caillet, alleges that injuries sustained in an accident hampered her ability to work. However, evidence presented in court suggests she continued to perform extensively around the world during the period she claimed to be unable to work.
The incident occurred in June 2018 when a piece of brick cornice detached from a building on Golborne Road in North Kensington, London, striking Ms. Caillet while she was using her mobile phone. She initiated legal proceedings against the building owner, O'Hare Holdings Ltd, asserting that the accident left her unable to DJ for six months, effectively stalling her burgeoning career.
Discrepancies Emerge: Social Media Evidence Contradicts Claims
The crux of the dispute lies in the alleged discrepancies between Ms. Caillet's claims of being unable to work and her documented activities following the accident. Lawyers for the building owner contend that Ms. Caillet may have been "fundamentally dishonest" in her claim. They presented social media posts and press coverage indicating that she "traveled around the world… giving numerous performances at clubs, launch parties, and events," including the Burning Man festival in Nevada.
These revelations directly contradict Ms. Caillet's initial statements in legal documents, where she claimed she "wasn't able to work" and "could not carry out any performances" for six months after the accident. The defense argues that her "relentless self-promotion" on social media while appearing at events across multiple continents undermines her claim for lost earnings.
DJ Claims "Misunderstanding" in Legal Documents
In response to these accusations, Ms. Caillet admitted in court that she "misunderstood" the question when filling out the legal documents. She clarified that she interpreted the question about her ability to "perform" as referring specifically to her capacity to perform DJ sets in the same manner as before the accident, not to any kind of work in general.
Her legal team argued that the falling brickwork narrowly missed her head because she was looking at her phone, resulting in injuries to her neck, shoulder, and foot. They maintain that she could have sustained far more serious injuries.
The Defense's Argument: A Pattern of Deletion and Misrepresentation
The building owner's lawyers are now urging the judge to dismiss her claim and order her to pay the legal costs, citing her alleged "dishonesty" about the impact of the accident as central to the case. They highlight the deletion of social media posts that documented her activities during the claimed period of incapacitation.
According to the defense, evidence shows Ms. Caillet participated in numerous high-profile events, including:
- Burning Man Festival (August-September)
- Magazine launch and pop-up street events in New York (September)
- An event for Burberry (October)
- The opening night of an Andy Warhol exhibition (November)
The defense contends that these appearances demonstrate her ability to work and actively promote herself, directly contradicting her claims of being unable to do so.
The Plaintiff's Rebuttal: Distinguishing "Passive" Work from Active Performance
Ms. Caillet maintains that her responses were not deliberately dishonest but stemmed from a misunderstanding of the term "performance." She argues that the work she engaged in during that period was "passive" in nature, involving pre-recorded playlists, promotional appearances, and being photographed for publicity, rather than performing full DJ sets.
She clarified that none of the events involved people buying tickets specifically to see her play until her return to genuine performance with a night in Paris in January 2019. Her attendance at Burning Man, she stated, was based on a pre-purchased ticket and was not a paid performance.
Her legal team emphasizes that she did not lie and did suffer a loss of income because she was unable to work in the same capacity as before the accident. They acknowledge that her answers in the pre-trial documents were "factually untrue" but not "deliberate or dishonest." She also asserts that while she earned some money during those six months, her earnings would have been significantly higher had the accident not occurred.
The Stakes: A Substantial Damages Claim and Potential Legal Costs
Ms. Caillet is seeking £99,851 in damages, with approximately £62,000 representing lost income during the six months following the accident. The outcome of the trial will determine whether she receives compensation for her injuries and alleged lost earnings, or if she will be held liable for the legal costs of the case. The trial is ongoing, and the judge will need to weigh the conflicting evidence and arguments to reach a verdict. The case raises important questions about the interpretation of legal documents, the use of social media evidence in court, and the definition of "work" in the context of the entertainment industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment