Chloe Caillet: DJ claimed she couldn’t work due to injury – then travelled the world
A DJ faces the charges he lies during a claim of compensation of £ 100,000 after being shot by the brick falling outside a London cage.
In June 2018, Chloe Caillet was injured when he was shot by a falling brick cornice while using North Kensington’s phone outside the Kipferl Cafe in June 2018.
He then filed a lawsuit, claiming that he could not do DJ for six months.
However, Mrs. Caillet faces allegations of “basic fraud” after evidence of “traveling around the world during this time.
Allegedly, “Clubs, launch parties and activities, including participating in the famous Burning Man Festival in the Nevada Desert, were documented by Paparazzi and media gossip columns”.
This week, the 33 -year -old boy said that he “misunderstood” when he filled the legal documents claiming that he could not work.
DJ lawyers told the mayor and the City County court that he might have hurt more seriously, because the falling brick only missed his head, because he went forward and looked at his mobile phone when he was shot. His neck, shoulder and foot were injured.
He claims that the building owner O’Hare Holdings Ltd is sued for about £ 100,000, claiming that the incident has stopped only at the point where he got up.
As a part of his case, he said that he could not “work” for six months after the accident, and he could not perform any performance, but social media evidence was forced to reject “fraud önce after“ relentless promotion ”because it appeared in“ several continents ”events.
The lawyers of the building owner now ask the district court judge to make his claim from King King and give legal invoices for the case on the allegation that he is at the center of the case.
However, Mrs. Caillet refused to accuse and says that the answer to the questions in the pre -trial documents “not right” as a DJ in general, as a DJ, as a DJ, is “misunderstood” because it believes that it was asked.
Ms. Caillet is a DJ, producer and very instrumentalist who plays in the world’s most well -known clubs and plays in concrete podium shows and publishes their own music.
Although he was born in Paris, he lived in Kensal Rise in Northwest London, found at various times in New York, Bristol and Ibiza.
According to the court documents, “a part of the brick in front of the building without a warning fell and the plaintiff landed” was injured.
Mrs. Caillet says that soft tissue injuries, back injuries, bruising and legs, feet and hands on her left shoulder and knee, and have been subjected to a series of psychiatric influences.
Dizziness, sleep disorder and bad dreams, anxiety and memory disorder claims that he suffered and said he could not work for six months before the trial documents.
Barrister Philip Grundy, who opened the case, said that he was “lucky ına because he was looking at the fact that Mrs. Caillet was looking at her phone.
“He argues that this is clearly a frightening event and as a result is lucky to be worse,” he said.
For O’Hare, lawyers accepted responsibility for the accident, but an investigation against social media accused him of “basic fraud” after showing events around the world for six months.
In addition to others, at the Burning Man Festival, a legendary music and art event in the Nevada Desert in September that year, a magazine launch in New York and Pop-Up Street events in September, an event for Burberry in October and the opening night of an Andy Warhol exhibition in November.
For the owner of the building, Barrister Nick Grimshaw clearly showed that Ms. Caillet was olmayan honest ”when the evidence said in the claim documents that he could not work for six months after the accident.
“The defendant acknowledges that the plaintiff continues to get soft tissue injuries in the accident,” he said.
“However, the defendant’s case is that the claim of loss of earnings is not fundamentally honest.
“Immediately after the accident, the plaintiff returned to work as a DJ and took the stage internationally in a large number of high -profile places where loss of earnings were demanded for six months.
Evidence of these performances is primarily due to the evidence of intelligence in the plaintiff’s public Instagram account, which was made before the transaction is started and then deleted.
“On March 23, 2022, the defendant announced the social media evidence showing that the plaintiff was traveling worldwide during the period of July 2018 – January 2019 and performed many performances in clubs, launch parties and events.
“In addition, Paparazzi and the media gossip column, documented by fashion, famous events and music festivals calendar had kept high profile.”
“The defendant claims that the plaintiff’s evidence and loss of earnings that he could not work or perform for six months is fundamentally unhealthy.
“He was able to work from an early stage and did it during the July 2018-January 2019 period. He was extremely busy until mid-September 2018.
“The plaintiff’s own Instagram account proves to promote the brutal self, and travels for numerous performances on several continents-but these entries have been erased.”
Ms. Caillet, who gave evidence, said that she accepted the answer to the judge, but insisted that what was asked was due to “misunderstanding”.
In a fashion event, rather than a promotional appearance, he said that it is due to the use of the word “performance ği, which he referred to as a part of a“ facing ”DJ set.
Im When I read the question, I misunderstood what it requires in terms of ‘performance’. ”
“This kind of work was passive business types,” he said, sometimes “pre -recorded playlists or sets” or only for promotional purposes.
In January 2019, until it returned to a real performance in Paris with a night in Paris, it didn’t include any of the people who didn’t include buying tickets to see their game.
The appearance in Burning Man was free, the court announced the documents and came after joining it because it was a previously purchased ticket.
His lawyer, Mr. Gundy, said Mrs. Caillet was not “lying” and had lost losses because he could not work as before within six months after the accident.
“The court should be clear that the plaintiff cannot work for a few months to work exactly after a small or daily way for a few months, because he could not do this accident other than six months later or for this work,” he said.
He said that his answers in the document were “actually wrong, but that he was not“ deliberate or honest ”.
He also insists that he will earn more, even though he earns money within those six months.
The court heard that Mrs. Caillet was demanding damage to £ 99.851 and represented the income lost within six months after the accident.
The hearing continues.
