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

An international DJ star who was hit by a pile of falling bricks while checking his phone outside a London cafe has been awarded £90,000 in costs and compensation.

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

The bricks only missed the now 33-year-old’s head because he was leaning forward and looking at his phone when he was hit, but the DJ suffered injuries to his neck, shoulder and foot.

He sued building owners O’Hare Holdings Ltd for nearly £100,000 in damages, initially saying the accident prevented him from working for six months.

However, he was forced to deny lying about his claim following allegations that he had worked on multiple continents at the time, including attending the Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert.

Recorder Karl King cleared Ms Caillet of fraud following a hearing at the Mayor and City District Court and handed Ealing-based O’Hare, whose directors were Damian and Marina O’Hare, a bill of nearly £90,000; This bill included £14,000 in compensation and £75,000 towards his lawyers’ bills.

The court heard Miss Caillet was a DJ, producer and multi-instrumentalist who played some of the world’s most famous clubs, soundtracked catwalk shows and released her own music.

Although born in Paris, she had lived at various times in New York, Bristol and Ibiza, enjoyed the jet-setting life and was living in Kensal Rise, north-west London, when the crash occurred.

He was injured when “a portion of the brick cornice at the front of the building fell without warning and landed on the plaintiff,” according to court documents.

Suing said he suffered soft tissue injuries to his left shoulder and knee, back injuries, bruising and abrasions to his legs, feet and hands, as well as a number of psychiatric effects.

Claiming that he suffered from dizziness, sleep disturbance, bad dreams, anxiety and memory loss, the applicant claimed compensation for loss of earnings and stated in his pre-trial documents that he had not been able to work for six months.

Philip Grundy, the lawyer who brought the case, said Ms Caillet was “lucky” because she avoided being hit in the head because she was looking at her phone.

“He maintains that this was clearly a frightening incident and that he was lucky he did not end up in a worse situation as a result,” he said.

O’Hare’s lawyers accepted responsibility for the crash but accused him of “fundamental dishonesty” after an investigation of his social media accounts showed O’Hare appeared at events around the world during the crucial six months.

O’Hare lawyer Nick Grimshaw said evidence presented before the judge during the trial showed he was “relentlessly self-promoting” while attending events “on several continents”.

According to defense documents, he appeared, among other things, at the Burning Man Festival, a legendary music and arts event in the Nevada desert from August to September of that year, at magazine launches and pop-up street events in New York in September, at an event for Burberry in October and at the opening night of an Andy Warhol exhibition in November.

“The defendant accepts that the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries in the accident,” the judge said.

“However, the defendant’s case is that the loss of earnings claim is essentially fraudulent.

“The plaintiff returned to work as a DJ immediately after the accident and performed internationally at a number of high-profile venues during the six months during which loss of earnings was alleged.”

However, Ms Caillet denied the accusation and said her “inaccurate” response to questions in the pre-trial papers was due to a “misunderstanding”; because he believed he was being asked about his ability to perform as a DJ, as he had done before the accident, as opposed to less strenuous work that meant more promotional activities.

While giving evidence, he admitted to the judge that his answer was incorrect, but insisted it was because he “misunderstood” the question he was asked.

He said this was due to the use of the word “performance”, which he understood to mean part of a “front-facing” DJ set rather than a promotional appearance at a fashion event.

“When I read the question, I misunderstood what it meant in terms of ‘performance’,” he said.

“Such studies that I carried out were of a passive type,” he said; sometimes it featured “pre-recorded playlists or sets” or was simply there to be photographed for promotional purposes.

He added that until he returned to actual performance with a night in Paris in January 2019, none of the events involved people buying tickets specifically to see him play.

His appearance at Burning Man was free, court documents revealed, and he arrived after attending because he had purchased tickets in advance.

Giving judgment, Recorder King said that although it was wrong for Ms Caillet to say she did not work for six months after the accident, he did not find her dishonest.

“All things considered, I conclude that the plaintiff did indeed suffer from orthopedic injuries caused by the accident, with some aggravation occurring for at least six months,” he said.

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

“I am also not satisfied that the injuries resulting from the accident have been found to have resulted in a reduction in income, as the plaintiff alleges.

“Given the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the true position was that the plaintiff returned to work after about three months, despite having symptoms that persisted for six months or more.”

But he said he could not ignore Ms Caillet’s statement that she had misunderstood what she was being asked when answering questions about her ability to work.

“When it comes to answering the questions, I cannot rule out, and do not find it unreasonable, that the plaintiff’s belief may have led him to mislead him as to what he was called upon to direct his mind in formulating the answers,” he said.

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

“I am not satisfied that there was in fact any intention to deceive.”

It awarded Ms Caillet approximately £14,000 in compensation for the injuries she suffered and as restitution of amounts she paid for therapy and medication after the accident.

However, he rejected a claim for more than £60,000 in damages for loss of earnings.

O’Hare Holdings was also ordered to cover Ms Caillet’s lawyers’ bills in the case and to pay £75,000 in advance pending full assessment of the final sum.