A DJ suing a building owner for £100,000 after being hit by falling bricks has been accused of lying after claiming she couldn’t work – while performing at international festivals.
Chloe Caillet, 33, an electronic music producer and DJ, was injured when a brick cornice collapsed outside the Kipferl Café in North Kensington, London, in June 2018 while she was using her phone.
She is now suing the building owner, O’Hare Holdings Ltd, for £99,851 in damages of which about £62,000 relates to alleged lost income, claiming the accident derailed her career just as it was taking off.
However, defence lawyers for the property company have accused the Paris-born DJ of ‘fundamental dishonesty’, after her social media showed her ‘relentless self-promotion’ and performances across several continents during the six months she claimed she was unable to work.
The court heard that Caillet ‘travelled around the world… giving numerous performances at clubs, launch parties and events… documented by paparazzi and media gossip columns’.
Allegedly during the six-month window she said she couldn’t work, Caillet attended the Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert, a Burberry fashion event in October, and a New York magazine launch in September.
She was also photographed at the opening night of an Andy Warhol exhibition in November.
Despite this, Caillet insists she simply ‘misunderstood’ the legal documents she filled out, saying she believed she was being asked about her ability to DJ in the same way as before the accident – not whether she worked at all.
Lawyers for the building owner are now asking county court judge, Recorder King, to throw out her claim and hand her the legal bills for the case on the basis that her alleged ‘dishonesty’ about the impact of the accident is central to the case.
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, north west 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.’
Ms Caillet says 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 after-effects.
She claims to been left suffering with dizziness, sleep disturbance and bad dreams, anxiety and memory impairment, and said in pre-trial documents that she had been unable to work for six months.
Opening the case, barrister Philip Grundy said Ms Caillet had been ‘fortunate’ as the fact 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 showed her at events all around the world during the crucial six months.
Among others, she appeared at the Burning Man Festival – a legendary music and arts event in the Nevada desert in August to September that year, 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 disclose.
For the building owner, barrister Nick Grimshaw said the evidence clearly showed that Miss Caillet had been ‘dishonest’ when she said in claim documents that she was ‘not able to work’ for six months after the accident.
‘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.
‘The evidence of these performances comes from intelligence evidence, primarily comprising posts on the claimant’s public Instagram account, which were made before proceedings were commenced and subsequently deleted.
‘On 23 March 2022, the defendant disclosed social media evidence, which showed the claimant had travelled around the world throughout the period July 2018 to January 2019, giving numerous performances at clubs, launch parties and events.
‘She also had maintained a high-profile in the calendar of fashion, celebrity events and music festivals, documented by paparazzi and media gossip column.’
He added: ‘The defendant contends that the claimant’s evidence regarding an inability to work or perform for six months and the associated presentation of loss of earnings is fundamentally dishonest.
‘She was able to work from an early stage and did so throughout the period July 2018 to January 2019. By mid-September 2018, she was extremely busy.
‘The claimant’s own Instagram account evidences relentless self-promotion, and travel for numerous performances across several continents – but these entries were then deleted.’
Giving evidence, Ms Caillet told the judge that she accepted the answer she gave was inaccurate, but insisted it was due to her ‘misunderstanding’ 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 did return to genuine performance with a night in Paris in January 2019, she added.
Her appearance at Burning Man had been unpaid, court documents disclose, and came after she attended because she had a pre-bought ticket.
Her barrister, Mr Grundy, said that Ms Caillet ‘did not lie’ and had suffered loss because she had not been able to work in those six months after the accident in the same way she did before.
‘It should be clear to the court that, on any view, the claimant was not able to work as she would have done absent this accident, other than in a minor or casual way for several months and returning to working fully, or being available for such work, after six months,’ he said.
He said she accepts her answers in the document were ‘factually untrue’ but that it was not ‘deliberate or dishonest.’ She also insists that, although she earned money in those six months, she would have earned more if not for the accident.
Ms Caillet is claiming £99,851 in damages, the court heard, with about £62,000 of that representing lost income in the six months after the accident.
The trial continues.
