Lacey Solicitors, Author at Lacey Solicitors | Specialist Insurance Law Firm

Why Is the Other Driver’s Insurer Calling About Your Car Accident Claim?

Posted on 17 August 2026 by Lacey Solicitors

Following a road traffic accident, the other driver’s insurance company may contact you directly and offer to manage your car accident claim. It may off to arrange repairs, provide a replacement vehicle, agree the pre-accident value of your car or settle a personal injury claim.

This practice is known as third-party intervention. To insurers, it can provide a quick and practical solution, but motorists should understand that the insurer represents the other driver’s interests and does not provide independent advice to the person making the claim.

What is third-party intervention?

Most major motor insurers have huge teams responsible for contacting people who may have claims against their policyholders. They may be described as intervention teams, third-party assistance teams or third-party claims teams.

Normally Lacey Solicitors will take instructions in the days after the accident, but certainly it is not uncommon to hear ‘the insurance company for the other driver have been trying to reach me and make me an offer for my injury to settle the case.’

On one occasion one of our client’s even received a bouquet of flowers from the at fault insurer asking them to make contact!

The practice is recognised by the Association of British Insurers’ Third Party Assistance Code. It applies where an insurer contacts an unrepresented individual following an accident involving its policyholder and offers to deal directly with some or all of the claim.

Our experience is that the insurer will offer to:

inspect the damaged vehicle;
arrange repairs through an approved repairer;
provide a replacement vehicle;
remove the vehicle from storage;
deal with salvage;
make an offer where the vehicle is a total loss;
address other financial losses; or
arrange medical assessment, treatment or rehabilitation.

A person contacted in this way is not obliged to accept the services proposed. The ABI Code provides that an unrepresented claimant should be informed in writing that there is no obligation to accept any or all of the assistance offered.

Why does the insurer make contact so quickly?

The principal reason is to control the handling and cost of the claim.

Motor claims can increase substantially where a damaged vehicle remains in storage or a replacement vehicle is required for an extended period. Repair charges, recovery and storage costs, vehicle hire, loss of earnings and other losses may all form part of the eventual claim.

Early intervention allows the insurer to manage those costs. It may move the vehicle from a storage yard, arrange repairs through its own approved network or provide a replacement vehicle through an established supplier with whom they have an agreement. If the vehicle is beyond economic repair, it may seek to agree the pre-accident value promptly.

These steps can benefit both parties. The Plaintiff may obtain a replacement vehicle and repairs without delay, while the insurer prevents avoidable charges from accumulating. The parties’ interests are not, however, identical.

The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable loss caused by the accident; the insurer has a commercial interest in controlling the amount paid.

Do I have to deal directly with the other driver’s insurer?

No. A Plaintiff is not required to accept the other insurer’s arrangements merely because contact has been made.

Depending upon the circumstances, a person involved in a non-fault accident may:

claim under their own comprehensive motor policy;
deal directly with the responsible driver’s insurer;
instruct a solicitor;
use an accident-management company; or
make other suitable arrangements for repairs and a replacement vehicle.

Each route has different consequences and outcomes. The appropriate course will depend upon liability, the condition of the vehicle, the need for a replacement vehicle, the existence of personal injury and the terms upon which assistance is offered.

For a broader explanation of the claims process, see our guide to car accident claims in Northern Ireland.

Is dealing directly with the insurer a bad idea?

Not necessarily. Our office has seen where direct intervention can work effectively. Most often when liability is accepted and suitable assistance such as replacement vehicles are provided without delay.

They can often avoid the need to enter a credit-hire or credit-repair agreement. Those agreements doprovide valuable assistance where a Plaintiff cannot fund a replacement vehicle or repairs in advance, but they can lead to disputes about whether the charges are recoverable.

Our office has seen when these practices go wrong, unsuitable replacement vehicles that are not like for like, pre-medical offers that are not reflective of compensation for NI and even poor repairs.

The decision should be based on the substance of the insurer’s proposal and any online reviews rather than an assumption that intervention is either always beneficial or always prejudicial.

The insurer does not act for you

A Plaintiff dealing with their own insurer has a contractual relationship under the motor policy. A complaint about that insurer’s handling of the policy may be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The position is different when dealing with another driver’s insurer. The Plaintiff is not that insurer’s policyholder, and the Financial Ombudsman Service cannot investigate a dispute between a Plaintiff and a third party’s insurer where there is no relevant customer relationship.

The ABI Code recognises this distinction. It provides that an unrepresented Plaintiff should be advised of the limits upon the Financial Ombudsman Service’s jurisdiction and informed of the right to obtain independent legal advice.

An insurer can explain what it is willing to provide. It cannot independently advise the claimant whether the proposal represents the proper value of the claim or adequately protects the claimant’s legal position.

Total-loss valuations

The valuation of a written-off vehicle is a frequent source of disagreement and one that our office sees repeatedly throughout the day. The appropriate measure is generally the vehicle’s reasonable pre-accident market value. An initial offer should not be treated as conclusive where comparable vehicles cannot be purchased for the amount proposed.

Relevant evidence may include:

make, model and age;
mileage;
specification and optional extras;
pre-accident condition;
service and maintenance history;
recent expenditure on the vehicle; and
the advertised price of genuinely comparable vehicles.

A Plaintiff who considers the valuation inadequate should request the basis of the insurer’s calculation and provide appropriate supporting evidence before agreeing a final settlement.

Replacement vehicles

Before accepting a replacement vehicle, the Plaintiff should establish:

whether it is suitable for their reasonable needs;
who will supply and insure it;
whether any charge may fall upon the claimant;
how long it will remain available;
whether it is like for like;
when it may be withdrawn; and
what will happen if liability is later disputed.

Particular care is required where the damaged vehicle is a taxi, commercial vehicle, motorcycle, prestige vehicle, adapted vehicle or other specialist vehicle. A standard replacement car may not meet the plaintiff actual needs or prevent an ongoing loss of earnings.

Personal injury claims

Early settlement requires greater caution where personal injury is involved. The nature and duration of an injury may not be apparent immediately. Symptoms may develop or persist, further treatment may become necessary, and the claimant may incur loss of earnings, care costs, travel expenses or other losses.

A full and final settlement agreed before the medical position is understood may undervalue the claim and ordinarily prevents the claimant from seeking additional compensation if the injury proves more serious than anticipated.

The ABI Code recognises circumstances in which independent legal advice should be strongly recommended, including disputed liability, allegations of contributory negligence, persistent or complicated injuries and disputes about causation.

Information to obtain during the call

Before making a decision, obtain:

the insurer’s name and claim reference;
confirmation of the policyholder involved;
confirmation of whether liability has been formally admitted;
full details of the services offered;
confirmation of any cost or contractual liability;
clarification of whether a payment is interim or in full and final settlement; and
written details of any stated time limit.

There is no requirement to decide during the telephone call. The proposal can be requested in writing and considered before it is accepted.

When should independent legal advice be considered?

Independent advice may be particularly important where the claim involves personal injury, disputed liability, contributory negligence, loss of earnings, credit hire, substantial storage charges, a disputed vehicle valuation or a specialist vehicle.

The solicitor’s role is not to create an unnecessary dispute. It is to identify the losses recoverable in law, assess whether the insurer’s proposals are reasonable and protect the claimant where further investigation is required.

Advice from a Belfast car accident solicitor

Lacey Solicitors advises clients throughout Northern Ireland following road traffic accidents. We regularly deal with motor insurers, accident-management companies and claims involving vehicle damage, total-loss valuations, replacement vehicles, credit hire, storage charges and personal injury.

Where an intervention proposal is reasonable, we will advise accordingly. Where further investigation is required, we can identify the outstanding issues and deal directly with the insurer on the client’s behalf.

If the other driver’s insurance company has contacted you about a car accident claim and you are uncertain whether to accept its proposals, contact Lacey Solicitors before agreeing a final settlement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why has the other driver’s insurance company contacted me?

The insurer has probably been notified of the accident by its policyholder and wishes to deal directly with the resulting claim. This is known as third-party intervention or third-party assistance.

Am I required to accept its assistance?

No. The ABI Third Party Assistance Code provides that an unrepresented Plaintiff should be informed that there is no obligation to accept any or all of the services offered.

Can the other driver’s insurer arrange repairs or provide a replacement car?

Yes. It may inspect the vehicle, arrange repairs through an approved repairer and offer a replacement vehicle. The claimant should confirm the terms, insurance arrangements and period of availability before accepting.

Can I complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service?

Usually not. The Financial Ombudsman Service cannot generally investigate a dispute between a claimant and another driver’s insurer because the claimant is not that insurer’s customer.

Can I appoint a solicitor after speaking to the insurer?

Yes. Speaking to the insurer does not prevent a claimant from obtaining independent legal advice or asking a solicitor to assume conduct of the claim.

Trip and Fall Claims in Northern Ireland: When Can You Claim Compensation?

Posted on 12 August 202611 August 2026 by Lacey Solicitors

A trip on a broken pavement, raised flagstone or defective road surface can happen in a moment. The consequences can be rather more significant: fractured wrists, damaged knees and ankles, facial injuries and, in more serious cases, injuries which affect work and day-to-day life for months afterwards.

For anyone injured in that way, the obvious question is usually: can I make a claim?

The answer depends on more than the fact that you fell.

In a trip and fall claim in Northern Ireland, it is normally necessary to establish not only what caused the accident, but that the condition of the road, pavement or premises amounted to a danger for which another person or organisation was legally responsible.

A recent High Court decision, Caren v Department for Infrastructure [2026] NIKB 37, provides a particularly useful illustration of that distinction.

The plaintiff had genuinely fallen. She suffered significant injuries. Nobody suggested that the accident was her fault. The parties had even agreed damages at £55,000 if she succeeded on liability.

Her claim nevertheless failed.

For anyone considering a pavement or trip claim, the judgment provides an important insight into what actually has to be proved.

A Recent Northern Ireland Trip and Fall Case: Caren v Department for Infrastructure

The accident in Caren occurred at Prospect Hill in Ballygowan, County Down.

The plaintiff was walking the short distance home after visiting neighbours when she tripped on an area of bitmac surrounding a drainage grating close to the kerb.

There was no separate footpath at the location. Pedestrians therefore had to walk on the roadway.

The plaintiff knew the area well and had walked there many times before without noticing a problem. On this occasion, however, she fell and sustained injuries to her face, mouth, chin, wrist and knee.

There was also independent evidence supporting the circumstances of the accident. A neighbour heard the fall and came outside to assist. As he approached the plaintiff, he too stumbled at what he believed was the same location.

The Department accepted that the plaintiff had fallen and did not allege contributory fault against her. Damages had been agreed at £55,000.

The real dispute was liability.

The High Court had to determine whether the area of road was legally dangerous and, if it was, whether the Department could rely upon the statutory defence available under Article 8 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

A Genuine Fall Does Not Automatically Mean a Successful Claim

This is one of the most important points for anyone considering a trip or pavement injury claim.

The seriousness of an injury does not determine whether the person responsible for the road or premises was negligent.

Likewise, proving that you were not to blame for falling does not necessarily prove that somebody else was.

The issue is whether there was a danger for which the proposed defendant was legally responsible.

That distinction was expressed particularly clearly by O’Hara J at the conclusion of Caren:

“It was not in any way her fault that she fell but nor… was it in any way the fault of the Department.”

That does not mean that road and pavement claims are inherently difficult or that they cannot succeed. They do.

It does mean that each claim needs to be investigated on its evidence rather than on the assumption that an injury automatically gives rise to compensation.

When Is a Road or Pavement Legally Dangerous?

The central issue in Caren was whether the feature which caused the plaintiff to fall was sufficiently serious to amount to a danger.

The court considered the established Northern Ireland authority of Keenan v DoE [1995] NI 342.

The test is objective and is one of fact and degree.

The court referred to the established formulation that the question is whether a reasonable person would consider that:

“There is quite a chance that someone going along the road may be injured if this stays as it is.”

If injury is merely possible, but sufficiently remote that it is “not in the least probable”, the legal test of dangerousness will not be met.

In practical terms, the court is not asking whether it is possible for someone to trip. Almost any imperfect surface presents some theoretical possibility of an accident.

The question is whether the state of the road or pavement presented a sufficiently real risk that it ought objectively to have been regarded as dangerous.

Is There a 20mm Rule for Trip and Fall Claims?

The so-called “20mm rule” frequently arises in Northern Ireland pavement claims.

Indeed, our office can remember a time when the prospects of a trip claim were sometimes assessed, at least initially, with the assistance of a 20p coin, which measures roughly 21mm across. Most trainees in our office have, at one time or another, been sent to the scene of a fall to meet a client armed with the all-important 20p coin.

The thinking was simple: if the defect was higher or deeper than the coin, the claim was potentially a good one.

The law, however, is not quite that straightforward.

It is sometimes assumed that if a defect measures more than 20mm, a claim succeeds, and if it measures less than 20mm, it fails.

That is not the law.

The Department for Infrastructure’s published Road Maintenance Standards for Safety (RSPPG E019) use measurements when categorising defects and determining the appropriate response. The standards distinguish between different types of defect and between roads, footways and footpaths.

Those standards are plainly important when investigating a claim against the Department for Infrastructure.

They do not, however, create an automatic legal threshold.

O’Hara J addressed the point directly in Caren v Department for Infrastructure [2026] NIKB 37:

“While the 20 millimetre criterion is a guideline, it is not a rule and much depends on the whole surroundings.”

That is an important qualification.

A defect measuring 20mm does not, by itself, establish liability. Equally, a road or pavement claim should not be dismissed simply because a measurement falls below a particular figure.

The court is concerned with the defect in context: its shape, whether the change in level is abrupt or gradual, where it is situated, how the area is used and the risk it actually presents to pedestrians.

So, while the 20p coin may still have a place in the folklore of Northern Ireland personal injury litigation, it should never be mistaken for the legal test.

The Shape of the Defect Can Matter as Much as Its Depth

The competing engineering evidence in Caren demonstrates why.

The plaintiff’s engineer measured a rise in the tarmac of close to 30mm and considered it to represent a hazard. His evidence was that the drainage grating had not been laid to the gradient of the road and that the bitmac had effectively been ramped around it.

The Department’s engineer took a different view.

He considered the feature to be a depression or undulation rather than an abrupt tripping edge. Although his measurement was approximately 26mm, the change occurred gradually over a distance.

That difference mattered.

A raised paving stone with an abrupt vertical edge may present a very different risk from a gradual change in level extending over a wider area, even if both can be given a similar measurement at their highest point.

For that reason, in a trip and fall claim, we are interested not simply in how deep or high a defect is, but in what it actually looks like and how somebody walking normally would encounter it.

The Location of a Pavement Defect Also Matters

The court in Caren also emphasised that an alleged defect must be considered in its surroundings.

The same irregularity may not necessarily present the same risk in every location.

A defect on a heavily used pedestrian route, for example, has to be considered in that context. The nature of the users who can reasonably be expected to encounter it can also be relevant.

This became an important argument in Caren because Prospect Hill did not have a footpath.

The plaintiff’s case was that the Department had treated the location simply as a carriageway when pedestrians necessarily had to use it as a walking route. It was argued that a pedestrian would naturally walk close to the kerb, which was precisely where the plaintiff fell.

The argument did not succeed on the facts of that case, but it demonstrates why location and actual use should form part of the investigation of a road or pavement claim.

Why Did the Claim in Caren Fail?

Having considered the photographs, engineering evidence and applicable case law, O’Hara J was not satisfied that the location amounted to a danger.

He concluded:

“The plaintiff’s case must fail because the spot where she fell was just not dangerous.”

The judge considered that the possibility of somebody being injured at the location was too remote to satisfy the applicable test.

That finding disposed of the claim.

The judgment nevertheless went further and considered what the position would have been if the judge had concluded that the road was dangerous.

That brings us to one of the most important issues in claims against the Department for Infrastructure: Article 8.

The Article 8 Defence in Department for Infrastructure Claims

When we intimate a claim involving an adopted road or pavement, a common response from the Department is to confirm that the locus is maintained by it but to deny liability on the basis of its inspection regime.

Typically, the Department will say that a regular system of inspection was operating before and after the accident, that its Highway Inspector did not record the particular location as requiring repair and that the Department therefore relies upon Article 8 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

Inspection records from immediately before and after the accident may then be produced.

There is nothing unusual about that response.

The Department’s own Road Maintenance Standards explain that safety inspections are used to identify defects likely to create hazards and that inspection frequency varies according to the type and use of the road, footway or footpath. The standards expressly link the maintenance regime to the Department’s Article 8 responsibilities. (Department for Infrastructure)

An Article 8 defence has to be taken seriously.

It should not, however, simply be assumed to succeed because an inspection record has been produced.

What Does a Solicitor Look for in DfI Inspection Records?

Where the Department relies upon its inspection system, the records need to be examined rather than simply accepted.

Take a hypothetical example of somebody who trips on a footway at Donegall Square West in Belfast.

We would want to establish which section of the Department’s network contained the accident location and obtain the relevant inspection history.

We would then consider matters such as:

how the location was classified;
what inspection frequency applied;
when it had last been inspected before the accident;
how the inspection was undertaken;
whether the defect appears to have been present at the previous inspection;
what other defects were being identified in the surrounding area;
what types of defect were being marked for repair;
whether there had been earlier complaints about the accident location;
whether previous repairs had been carried out; and
whether the Department had complied with the maintenance regime applicable at that particular time.

The purpose is not simply to find another defect with the same measurement and say that the two are identical.

They may not be.

A sharp vertical edge on a heavily used footway may be quite different from a gradual depression on a lightly trafficked road.

However, the inspection history can provide important evidence of what the Department knew, what its inspectors were seeing and how its own maintenance standards were being applied in practice.

Inspection Frequency Depends on the Type of Road or Footpath

The Department does not inspect every road and pavement in Northern Ireland at identical intervals.

Its published standards classify carriageways, footways and footpaths according to matters including traffic and usage.

The Department’s current DEM 158/24 provides, for example, for more frequent inspection of high-traffic town and city-centre footways than lower-traffic footways. The memorandum records that the inspection-frequency regime resulted from a risk-based review which considered matters including traffic levels, defect numbers and road classification. (Department for Infrastructure)

That can be important when investigating a claim.

If an accident occurs on a busy Belfast city-centre footway, we would want to establish that the correct classification had been applied and that the required inspections had actually taken place.

Likewise, if an accident happens within a residential development, the classification and corresponding regime may be different.

It is the inspection regime applicable to the actual locus which matters.

The Policy in Force on the Date of the Accident Must Be Considered

Inspection and maintenance policies also change over time.

A current policy should not simply be applied retrospectively to an accident which happened a number of years ago.

That was relevant in Caren, because the plaintiff’s accident occurred in July 2020.

At that time the Department had issued DEM 160/20, dealing with the limited road maintenance service operating during 2020/21. That memorandum stated that inspections were to continue in accordance with the revised frequencies contained in DEM 158/15, while the limited-service arrangements affected which defects were to be instructed for repair. (Department for Infrastructure)

DEM 158/15, in turn, prescribed different inspection periods according to the type and usage of carriageways, footways and footpaths. (Department for Infrastructure)

Accordingly, when investigating a historic trip or fall, it may be necessary to establish which maintenance and inspection standards were actually in force on the date of the accident.

That is often more useful than simply looking at the Department’s current policy.

“It Did Not Meet Our Criteria” Does Not Automatically Decide the Claim

One phrase which regularly appears in correspondence is that the alleged defect did not meet the Department’s criteria for an actionable defect or for repair.

That is important evidence.

It is not quite the same question as the one ultimately facing a court.

The Department needs operational criteria so its inspectors can determine which defects should be recorded, how they should be categorised and what response is required. RSPPG E019 contains those standards and response categories. (Department for Infrastructure)

The court, however, must decide the legal question of ‘dangerousness.’

That is why the observation in Caren about the 20mm criterion being a guideline rather than a rule is so important.

The Department’s standards are highly relevant evidence. They are not a substitute for considering the defect, the location and the circumstances as a whole.

The reverse is also true.

A claimant cannot simply establish that a defect exceeded a particular Departmental measurement and assume that liability necessarily follows.

The Article 8 Defence Succeeded in Caren

It is important to be balanced about Article 8.

The defence is not merely a stock phrase in a Departmental letter. Where the evidence supports it, it can defeat a claim.

That is precisely what O’Hara J held in Caren.

Although his finding that the road was not dangerous was sufficient to dismiss the case, the judge considered Article 8 in case that conclusion was wrong.

He accepted the evidence of the Highway Safety Inspector and was satisfied that he was competent, experienced, qualified and properly trained. The court was also satisfied that the road had been inspected appropriately.

The Department therefore would have established its Article 8 defence in any event.

The lesson for a claimant is not that an inspection defence cannot be challenged.

It is that it has to be challenged on evidence.

The Department Is Not Required to Make Every Road Perfect

There was a further argument in Caren concerning the original construction of the road.

The plaintiff’s engineer considered that the drainage feature may not originally have been installed correctly. The plaintiff argued, in effect, that the Department had subsequently adopted a road containing that irregularity.

That argument also failed.

Referring to Keenan v DoE, O’Hara J explained that adoption does not make the Department responsible for every issue arising from the original construction.

The judgment stated:

“The statutory duty is to maintain the fabric of the highway, not to guarantee the perfection of its original construction.”

That is consistent with the wider approach of the court.

The Department has an obligation to maintain the road network. It does not guarantee that every road and footpath will be completely flat or free from every minor irregularity.

As the court observed in Caren, a road does not have to measure up to the standard of a “bowling green.”

What Evidence Should You Get After a Trip or Fall?

One of the practical difficulties with trip and fall claims is that the physical evidence can change very quickly.

A pothole may be repaired. A raised flag may be relaid. A spillage may be cleaned. CCTV may be overwritten.

If you have been injured, obtaining evidence at an early stage can therefore be extremely important.

Take photographs of the defect

If it is safe to do so, take clear photographs of whatever caused you to fall.

Do not take only one close-up photograph.

Photograph the defect from several angles and also take wider photographs which show exactly where it is situated.

A photograph showing a hole without any context may be of limited assistance months or years later.

Record measurements where possible

Where the claim involves a raised or depressed surface, photographs showing an accurate measurement can be useful.

Again, measurement is not the entire case, but it is important evidence.

Record the exact location

An instruction that the accident happened “somewhere on the Lisburn Road” is obviously much less useful than being able to identify the precise section of pavement, nearby premises or other landmark.

The exact locus becomes particularly important when inspection and maintenance records have to be obtained.

Obtain witness details

If somebody saw the accident, or knew about the defect beforehand, obtain their name and contact details.

Evidence that a defect had been present for some time or had previously caused difficulty may become relevant.

Report the defect

Where appropriate, the defect should be reported.

A report made close to the date of the accident may also provide a contemporaneous record of the condition complained of.

Seek medical attention

Your health comes first.

Medical records also provide an important contemporaneous record of the injuries and symptoms following an accident.

Keep records of financial loss

Depending on the injuries sustained, a claim may include more than compensation for the injury itself.

Keep evidence of any loss of earnings, treatment costs, medication, travel expenses or other reasonable financial losses caused by the accident.

What Injuries Can Be Claimed for After a Trip or Fall?

Trips and falls can result in a wide range of injuries.

We commonly see claims involving:

wrist and arm fractures;
ankle injuries;
knee injuries;
shoulder injuries;
facial and dental injuries;
cuts and scarring;
back injuries;
ligament and soft-tissue injuries; and
more serious injuries following heavy falls.

The value of a claim depends upon the individual medical evidence rather than the label attached to the accident.

Two people who trip over the same defect may sustain entirely different injuries and therefore have very different claims.

How Much Compensation Is a Trip and Fall Claim Worth?

£55,000.00 was the figure agreed in Caren.

That said, there is no standard compensation figure for a trip and fall claim in Northern Ireland.

The value will depend upon matters including the nature of the injury, the recovery period, whether symptoms are likely to be permanent, any effect on employment and the financial losses caused by the accident.

Medical evidence will normally be required before an injury can be valued properly.

The £55,000 figure in Caren is a useful reminder of another important point: the value of a claim and liability are separate questions.

The parties in that case had agreed the value of the plaintiff’s injuries, but because she failed to establish liability, she did not recover those damages.

What About Trips and Falls in Shops, Workplaces and Other Premises?

Not every trip and fall claim involves the Department for Infrastructure.

Accidents also happen in supermarkets, shops, workplaces, hotels, restaurants, shopping centres, car parks and other private premises.

The legal duties in those cases can be different.

Examples might include:

a supermarket failing to deal with a spillage;
broken or uneven flooring in a shop;
materials left across a walkway at work;
defective stairs or handrails;
loose mats;
trailing cables;
poorly lit access routes; or
other hazards which should reasonably have been identified and addressed.

Those claims may involve occupiers’ liability, employers’ liability or negligence rather than the particular Roads Order provisions considered in Caren.

The central exercise is nevertheless familiar: what caused the fall, who was responsible for the area, and should reasonable steps have been taken to prevent the accident?

How Long Do You Have to Make a Trip and Fall Claim in Northern Ireland?

You should seek legal advice promptly following an accident.

The normal limitation period for a personal injury claim in Northern Ireland is three years, although exceptions can apply and limitation can depend upon the circumstances of the individual case.

There is a more practical reason not to wait.

Even where the legal deadline is years away, the best evidence may disappear within days or weeks.

A solicitor instructed early has a much better opportunity to preserve photographs and CCTV, identify witnesses and obtain the relevant inspection, complaint and maintenance records.

Should I Speak to a Solicitor About a Trip and Fall Claim?

If you have suffered an injury from a fall or slip accident and believe that a defective pavement, road or premises caused your fall, it is sensible to obtain advice before deciding whether there is a worthwhile claim.

A photograph which looks compelling to a plaintiff may raise quite different issues when considered against the legal test, engineering evidence and maintenance records.

Equally, a rejection letter stating that the Department had inspected the road and relies upon Article 8 does not necessarily tell the whole story.

The proper approach is to investigate the evidence and advise on the merits.

Speak to a Trip and Fall Solicitor in Belfast

Caren v Department for Infrastructure [2026] NIKB 37 is a useful recent reminder of what is involved in a Northern Ireland road or pavement claim.

The plaintiff suffered a genuine and significant injury. Nobody blamed her for falling. The proposed damages were £55,000.

The claim nevertheless failed because the High Court was not satisfied that the location was legally dangerous and, in any event, found that the Department had established its Article 8 defence.

That should not discourage someone with a genuine claim from seeking advice.

It should demonstrate why these cases require proper investigation.

At Lacey Solicitors, our personal injury solicitors in Belfast act for clients in trip and fall claims throughout Northern Ireland, including claims involving defective pavements, roads, public places, workplaces and private premises.

Where the claim involves the Department for Infrastructure, we can consider the photographs and measurements, identify the relevant road or footway classification, examine the inspection and repair records and consider any defence raised under Article 8.

If you have been injured in a trip or fall and would like to know whether you have a claim, contact our personal injury team to discuss what happened and the evidence available.

Mandatory Mediation in Ireland: High Court Confirms Power to Order Mediation

Posted on 11 August 202611 August 2026 by Lacey Solicitors

Mandatory mediation in Ireland has taken aimportant step forward following the recent decision of Mr Justice Twomey in J Burke & Associates Ltd v Patrick O’Connell [2026] IEHC 314.

Can an Irish court order parties to mediate against their wishes?

The recent decision of Mr Justice Twomey in J Burke & Associates Ltd v Patrick O’Connell [2026] IEHC 314 provides an important answer: in appropriate cases, the Irish courts have an inherent jurisdiction to direct parties to engage in mediation, even where one or both parties object.

The judgment represents a significant development in Irish civil litigation. It moves the discussion beyond whether a court can simply invite parties to mediate and confirms that, in suitable circumstances, mediation can become a court directed procedural step.

Importantly, however, the Court cannot force parties to settle.

The distinction is fundamental. A party may be required to attend mediation and participate in the process, but the decision whether to compromise remains voluntary.

The judgment is particularly significant when considered alongside Practice Direction HC141, which came into operation on 3 June 2026 and reinforces the importance of compliance with the Mediation Act 2017 and related ADR obligations.

Together, these developments send a clear message: mediation is becoming an increasingly important part of litigation strategy in Ireland, rather than something to be considered only when a case is approaching trial.

What is the Burke v O’Connell decision about?

The proceedings arose from a dispute between an engineering company and a farmer concerning approximately €252,004 in allegedly unpaid professional fees.

The dispute had been before the High Court for approximately ten years and was approaching the point where it could be set down for trial.

The plaintiff sought an order inviting or directing the parties to engage in mediation.

The application was significant because the defendant did not wish to mediate.

Among the reasons advanced against mediation were that the defendant had already incurred substantial legal costs, his position on the fees was unlikely to change, mediation was being suggested relatively late in the proceedings, only one party appeared willing to participate, and mediation itself would involve additional expense.

The Court therefore had to confront a question of considerable practical importance:

Can an Irish court order unwilling parties to mediate, or is its role limited to inviting them to do so?

The High Court confirms an inherent jurisdiction to order mediation

After considering the constitutional, statutory and procedural issues, Twomey J concluded that the Court does have an inherent jurisdiction to order parties to engage in mediation in appropriate cases.

The Court’s conclusion was based principally on its inherent power to regulate its own proceedings and to ensure that the administration of justice operates efficiently and proportionately.

The judgment considered a range of factors supporting that jurisdiction, including the importance of efficient use of court resources, the development of mediation under Irish legislation and court practice, the potential to reduce litigation costs and the persuasive authority of developments in England and Wales.

The Court was careful, however, to emphasise that the power is not unlimited.

Before directing mediation, the Court should be satisfied that there is a prospect that mediation may either resolve the dispute or narrow the issues, and that requiring the parties to mediate would be proportionate.

Any delay caused by mediation must also be weighed against the potential benefits.

This is therefore not a rule that every civil dispute must now go to mandatory mediation.

Rather, it is a recognition that the Court has another tool available when managing proceedings.

Mandatory mediation does not mean mandatory settlement

Perhaps the most important practical distinction in Burke v O’Connell is between participating in mediation and settling a dispute.

Mediation remains a voluntary process in terms of its outcome.

A court can direct parties to attend and participate in the process. It cannot require either party to:

accept an offer;
make a concession;
compromise a claim;
sign a settlement agreement; or
abandon its right to have the dispute determined by the Court.

If mediation fails, the parties retain their right to proceed with the litigation.

That distinction was central to the Court’s conclusion that court directed mediation does not, in itself, violate the constitutional right of access to the courts.

The direction affects the process and timing of litigation; it does not remove the ultimate right to a judicial determination.

Why did the Court consider mandatory mediation justified?

The economic reality of the underlying dispute was particularly important.

The claim was worth approximately €252,000, but the Court considered that the legal costs associated with taking the matter through a High Court trial could potentially exceed the amount in dispute.

The judgment records the possibility of combined brief fees alone reaching approximately €150,000, before other legal costs were taken into account.

The Court also observed that it was possible that the losing party could ultimately face costs of €300,000 or more in resolving a dispute worth €252,004.

That creates an obvious problem.

A dispute can become too expensive to continue, but too expensive to abandon.

This is one of the most important practical themes running through the judgment.

Where substantial costs have already been incurred, parties may feel locked into litigation because abandoning the case means accepting those costs without the prospect of recovering them.

Continuing towards trial, however, exposes both sides to another substantial layer of expense.

Mediation can provide a mechanism for breaking that cycle.

Mediation as a case management tool

The significance of Burke therefore extends beyond settlement.

The Court recognised that mediation can serve several purposes even where a complete settlement is unlikely.

It may:

resolve the dispute entirely;
narrow the issues for trial;
clarify the parties’ respective positions;
test the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case;
reduce the number of witnesses or experts required;
reduce the length of a trial; and
avoid unnecessary expenditure of court resources.

That is an important change in perspective.

Mediation should not necessarily be viewed as a binary question of “settlement or failure.”

A mediation which reduces a three week trial to a substantially shorter hearing may still have delivered a significant benefit.

Similarly, an unsuccessful mediation may expose weaknesses in a party’s position which influence later settlement negotiations.

The constitutional right of access to the courts

One of the obvious arguments against mandatory mediation is that parties have a constitutional right to access the courts.

The High Court rejected the proposition that court directed mediation is inherently inconsistent with that right.

The reasoning was essentially one of proportionality.

A direction to mediate does not prevent a party from ultimately obtaining a hearing. It merely requires the party to attempt another method of resolving the dispute first.

The Court also considered the wider public interest.

Court time is a finite public resource. If a dispute can reasonably be resolved through mediation, avoiding a lengthy trial may free court resources for other litigants whose disputes genuinely require judicial determination.

In that sense, mediation can potentially protect access to justice rather than undermine it.

The judgment therefore places mediation within the broader responsibility of the courts to ensure that litigation is conducted in a manner which is just, expeditious and proportionate.

What about the Mediation Act 2017?

The decision does not displace the Mediation Act 2017.

Instead, it sits within the broader statutory framework that has progressively embedded mediation into Irish civil litigation.

Section 14 of the Mediation Act 2017 places obligations on solicitors to advise clients, before proceedings are commenced, to consider mediation as a means of resolving the dispute.

Section 16 gives the Court power to invite parties to consider mediation.

The Court also considered the significance of provisions allowing costs consequences where a party unreasonably refuses to engage with mediation.

This wider statutory landscape was relevant to the Court’s conclusion that recognising an inherent jurisdiction to direct mediation was consistent with the development of Irish civil procedure.

The Court did not regard section 16’s express reference to the power to “invite” parties to mediate as necessarily excluding other powers available to the Court when controlling its own process.

Practice Direction HC141: mediation is now firmly on the procedural agenda

The significance of Burke v O’Connell is reinforced by Practice Direction HC141.

Issued by the President of the High Court on 20 May 2026 and effective from 3 June 2026, HC141 draws practitioners’ and litigants’ attention to the obligations contained in the Mediation Act 2017 and related legislation. It specifically highlights the importance of mediation and ADR and the potential consequences of non compliance.

The Practice Direction emphasises that the statutory obligations surrounding mediation are not simply administrative formalities.

For solicitors, this means that advice concerning mediation should be properly considered and documented.

For litigants, it means that decisions about mediation should form part of the substantive litigation strategy.

And for insurers and professional indemnity claims handlers, it reinforces the need for mediation to be considered alongside liability, quantum, reserving and litigation cost exposure.

The Courts Service itself describes HC141 as highlighting the importance of mediation and ADR and reminding practitioners and litigants of the potential consequences of failing to comply with their obligations.

Costs consequences: the direction of travel

Burke v O’Connell should also be viewed against a series of Irish decisions concerning mediation and costs.

The courts have increasingly demonstrated that mediation advice and engagement can have consequences when costs are ultimately considered.

In Byrne v Arnold [2024] IEHC 308, a costs penalty was imposed in circumstances involving failure to comply with the statutory mediation advice requirements.

Subsequent decisions, including Leahy v Pepper and V Media Doo v Techads Media Ltd [2025] IEHC 430, have continued the judicial focus on meaningful compliance with mediation obligations.

The practical lesson is important.

The question is increasingly not simply whether mediation was mentioned on the file. It is whether it was properly considered.

A refusal to mediate should therefore be capable of being objectively justified.

That does not mean every refusal will be unreasonable.

There will be cases where mediation is premature, disproportionate or unlikely to assist.

But practitioners should be increasingly cautious about adopting an automatic position that mediation is unnecessary simply because their client considers its case to be strong.

What does this mean for litigants?

For parties involved in Irish civil litigation, mediation should be treated as a continuing strategic consideration.

It should not necessarily be a one off decision made immediately before proceedings are issued.

The appropriate timing may change as the litigation develops.

For example, mediation may initially be premature because:

discovery is incomplete;
expert evidence is unavailable;
quantum remains uncertain;
important witnesses have not been interviewed; or
the issues have not yet sufficiently crystallised.

Later, however, those obstacles may disappear.

The case may then become particularly suitable for mediation.

Practitioners should therefore consider revisiting the issue after significant procedural milestones, including discovery, expert reports, exchange of witness statements and interlocutory applications.

What should insurers and claims professionals do?

The decision is particularly relevant to insurers handling professional indemnity, construction, engineering and other complex commercial claims.

For an insurer, the decision to mediate should not be based solely on the question:

“Do we think we will win?”

The better question is:

“What is the most proportionate way of managing the overall litigation risk?”

That assessment should include:

the value of the claim;
the likely legal costs to trial;
the costs already incurred;
the likelihood of an appeal;
expert and investigation costs;
the strength and weaknesses of the liability case;
quantum uncertainty;
the possibility of narrowing issues through mediation;
the availability and suitability of a mediator; and
the likely commercial consequences of continued litigation.

A case can have a strong defence and still be an excellent candidate for mediation.

Equally, a mediation should not be pursued simply because it is fashionable.

If critical evidence is unavailable, the parties may not yet be in a position to make informed settlement decisions.

Preparation matters

The growing judicial emphasis on mediation should not be interpreted as meaning that every dispute should be sent to a mediator as quickly as possible.

Good mediation is usually informed mediation.

Parties need enough information to evaluate their respective positions.

In complex professional negligence, construction and engineering disputes, that may include expert evidence on liability, causation and quantum.

A mediation conducted before the parties understand the evidence can simply add another layer of expense.

The objective should therefore be to identify the point at which the parties have sufficient information to make rational settlement decisions without waiting until they have incurred every possible litigation cost.

That is where mediation can become a genuine risk management tool rather than simply another procedural event.

Choosing the right mediator

The choice of mediator can make a substantial difference to both the conduct and outcome of a mediation.

In straightforward commercial disputes, a mediator with broad commercial experience may be entirely appropriate. In complex professional indemnity, construction or technical litigation, however, the parties may benefit from a mediator who can quickly understand the underlying legal, factual and technical issues.

The mediator’s role is not to decide who is right. It is to challenge assumptions, test litigation risk, identify barriers to settlement and help the parties explore solutions which may not be apparent from their respective litigation positions.

Our own experience of mediations in both the Four Courts in Dublin and the High Court in Northern Ireland has also demonstrated that the style of the mediator can be just as important as their technical expertise.

Different mediators adopt very different approaches. Some favour a highly collaborative process, encouraging the parties to work gradually towards common ground. Others adopt a considerably more assertive style, directly challenging entrenched positions and, where necessary, applying a degree of commercial reality to both sides.

There are cases where that more robust approach can be particularly effective. Parties who have been involved in litigation for a considerable period can understandably become fixed in their respective positions. An experienced and assertive mediator can sometimes “knock heads together”, challenge unrealistic expectations and refocus the parties on the risks, costs and commercial consequences of continuing the dispute.

In our experience, that more interventionist style is encountered more frequently in mediations in the Republic of Ireland, whereas mediation in Northern Ireland in our experience can often adopt a more collaborative or facilitative approach. That is not, of course, a rigid distinction: the approach will depend heavily upon the individual mediator, the parties and the nature of the dispute.

The important point is that mediator selection should not be treated as an administrative afterthought. The parties should consider not only the mediator’s legal or technical expertise, but also whether their personality and mediation style are likely to suit the particular dispute and the personalities involved.

A well chosen mediator can therefore add considerable value even where the parties initially appear to be far apart.

What Burke v O’Connell does not mean

It would be wrong to suggest that the High Court has made mediation universally mandatory.

It has not.

The judgment establishes an inherent jurisdiction to order mediation in appropriate circumstances.

The Court must still consider the facts of the individual case, including proportionality, timing, the prospects of resolving or narrowing the dispute and the impact on access to the courts.

It is also important that no formal mediation order was ultimately made in Burke.

Although Twomey J concluded that this was a case in which he would have considered a direction to mediate appropriate, the defendant subsequently indicated a conditional willingness to mediate. The Court therefore did not need to make the formal order at that stage.

The judgment nevertheless provides important guidance because the Court expressly considered the jurisdiction and concluded that it exists.

A new question for litigation strategy

Historically, the strategic question for a litigant might have been:

“Should we mediate?”

Following Burke v O’Connell, there is potentially another question:

“What happens if we refuse?”

A party which unreasonably refuses an invitation to mediate may already face costs implications.

There is now the additional possibility, in an appropriate case, of a court directing the parties to mediate.

That possibility may itself encourage parties to engage voluntarily.

The practical effect could therefore be greater than the number of formal court orders actually made.

If parties know that an unreasonable refusal could ultimately result in a court directed mediation, they may be more willing to engage before an application becomes necessary.

Litigation as a last resort?

Taken together, the Mediation Act 2017, recent costs decisions, Practice Direction HC141 and Burke v O’Connell demonstrate a clear evolution in Irish civil litigation.

Mediation is no longer simply an alternative sitting alongside litigation.

It is increasingly being incorporated into the management of litigation itself.

The Court’s message is not that every dispute should settle.

Nor is it that parties should abandon legitimate claims or defences.

Rather, it is that litigation should be conducted proportionately and that parties should give genuine consideration to whether the dispute can be resolved, or at least narrowed, without consuming disproportionate time and resources.

For complex commercial disputes, professional negligence claims, construction disputes and professional indemnity litigation, that is an important shift.

Conclusion

J Burke & Associates Ltd v O’Connell [2026] IEHC 314 is a significant development in Irish mediation law.

The High Court has confirmed that, in appropriate circumstances, it has an inherent jurisdiction to order parties to attempt mediation even where they do not wish to do so.

That does not mean compulsory settlement.

The parties retain control over the outcome.

What the Court can require is participation in a process designed to test whether the dispute can be resolved or narrowed before further substantial public and private resources are committed to litigation.

The decision should therefore prompt a change in mindset among litigants, solicitors, insurers and claims professionals.

Mediation should be considered early, realistically and repeatedly as a dispute develops.

A decision not to mediate should have a clear rationale.

And where the cost of continuing litigation begins to approach, or potentially exceed, the value of the dispute, the question should no longer be whether mediation is merely an alternative to litigation.

It may be one of the most important tools available for managing the litigation itself.

For litigation and insurance lawyers in Ireland, the message from Burke v O’Connell is clear: mediation is no longer simply something the Court can suggest. In an appropriate case, it is something the Court can direct.

Buying an Older Property? Understanding First Registration in Northern Ireland

Posted on 10 August 202611 August 2026 by Lacey Solicitors

If you’re buying an older property in Northern Ireland, you may hear your solicitor say that the property is “unregistered” or that it is held in the Registry of Deeds rather than the Land Registry.

This often causes concern for buyers, but in reality it is quite common, particularly with properties that have been in the same ownership for many years.

The good news is that there is a well-established process for dealing with this. Following the purchase, your solicitor will apply to register the property in the Land Registry for the first time. This is known as First Registration or Compulsory First Registration.

What is the Registry of Deeds?

Before the Land Registry became widely used, property ownership in Northern Ireland was commonly recorded in the Registry of Deeds.

Rather than holding a definitive record of ownership, the Registry of Deeds records documents such as conveyances, mortgages and other deeds relating to a property. Ownership is established by examining the title deeds and tracing the history of the property through those documents.

Many properties across Northern Ireland are still held under this older system, particularly houses that have not changed hands for a long time.

Why Does the Property Need to Be Registered in the Land Registry?

The Land Registry is now the primary system for recording ownership of land in Northern Ireland.

Unlike the Registry of Deeds, the Land Registry maintains a map-based register showing ownership of the property, together with any rights, restrictions or mortgages affecting it. The information recorded is backed by a government guarantee of title.

To create a complete and reliable register of land ownership across Northern Ireland, legislation requires most sales of unregistered property to be registered in the Land Registry for the first time. This is why the process is called Compulsory First Registration.

What Happens During the Process?

Investigating the Title

As shown in our previous article where we outlined the The Steps Involved in Buying a House in Belfast, before contracts are completed, the purchaser’s solicitor will carefully review the title deeds.

Unlike a registered property, where ownership can be confirmed by examining the Land Registry folio, an unregistered property often has a bundle of deeds stretching back many years. Your solicitor must check those documents to ensure the seller has good title to the property and that there are no issues affecting the purchase.

Completion of the Purchase

Once all searches and enquiries have been dealt with, the purchase completes in the usual way and the buyer becomes the owner of the property.

Many clients are surprised to learn that they do not need to wait for Land Registry registration before moving into the property. Ownership transfers on completion of the sale. The registration process happens afterwards.

Registration in the Registry of Deeds

Following completion, it is often good practice for the transfer deed and any related documents to be registered in the Registry of Deeds before the first registration application is submitted to the Land Registry.

This creates an official record of the transaction while the Land Registry application is being processed and ensures that any associated documentation, such as mortgage releases, has been properly recorded.

Applying for First Registration

The purchaser’s solicitor will then prepare and submit a First Registration application to the Land Registry.

This involves lodging the title deeds, transfer documentation, mapping information and the relevant Land Registry forms. The title is examined by the Land Registry before a new folio is created.

How Long Does First Registration Take?

This is one of the questions we are asked most often.

The answer is that it varies.

Straightforward applications may be processed relatively quickly, while older or more complex titles can take several months. If the Land Registry requires further information or raises queries about the title or property boundaries, the process can take longer.

As a general guide, buyers should not be surprised if first registration remains ongoing for a number of months after completion of the purchase.

Importantly, this does not normally affect ownership of the property. Once the purchase has completed and the application has been lodged, the buyer’s interest is protected while the Land Registry processes the application.

What Are the Benefits of First Registration?

Once registration is complete:

The property receives its own Land Registry folio number.
Ownership is clearly recorded on the Land Register.
The title benefits from a government guarantee.
Future sales and remortgages are usually simpler and more straightforward.
The property is identified on a Land Registry map, helping to clarify ownership boundaries.

Need Advice?

If you are buying or selling a property that is currently registered in the Registry of Deeds, our conveyancing team led by William Wilson can guide you through the process from start to finish.

We regularly deal with First Registration applications throughout Northern Ireland and can advise on title deeds, Registry of Deeds registrations, Land Registry applications and any issues that arise during the registration process.

This article is intended as general guidance only