Enquire Today

Author: Lacey Solicitors

Falls, Slips, and Accidental Trips in Belfast – How Soon Should You Start Your Claim for Compensation?

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

If you have been the victim of slipping on a wet floor, tripping on a hazardous object, or falling in a public place, then this could lead to major changes in your life… A legal professional could help you make a personal injury claim in Northern Ireland and seek the compensation you deserve.

When slips, trips, or falls happen in Northern Ireland, and it was someone else’s fault, you may be able to make a claim for compensation. A personal injury solicitor will help you to make a claim, giving you the best chance at receiving optimal compensation. Often, your actions could prevent the same accident from happening to someone else.

Whether caused by hazards like uneven pavements, poor lighting, or wet surfaces, falling accidents happen all the time. Here at Lacey Solicitors we are often asked for guidance on how to claim for a slip, trip, or fall injury that was someone else’s fault.

Slips, Trips, and Falls in Belfast

 

The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland notes slips and trips as the most commonly reported accident within the workplace. Altogether, this single branch of personal injuries in Belfast accounts for a full third of all major injuries at work. In 2023, as many as 10,000 Belfast workers suffered serious injuries caused by tripping and falling. Over 95% of those reported broken bones as a result.

What Injuries Can Slips, Trips, and Falls Cause?

 

Whether it is slipping on a spilled drink, tripping over a broken kerb or falling over an unmarked manhole, the result can be a variety of injuries and serious harm. In the past 12 months, our Belfast office has dealt with injuries involving:

  •       Broken bones
  •       Head injuries or significant brain trauma
  •       Muscular injuries such as strains or sprains
  •       Cuts, bruises and other lacerations

Last year, our personal injury solicitors dealt with a case in Belfast involving serious permanent facial disability and secured for him compensation for the pain and suffering, as well as reimbursement of his medical bills and lost income.

When Should You Make a Claim for your Slip, Trip, or Fall Claim in NI?

 

It is always best to contact a personal injury lawyer to discuss your claim as soon as possible after a slip, trip, or fall. There is a statute of limitations on when you can file a claim for compensation in Northern Ireland. There is a legal time limit during which you are allowed to make a claim.

What is the Statute of Limitations on Personal Injury Cases in NI?

 

The statute of limitations upon personal injury claims in Northern Ireland is 3 years. This means that you will need to file your claim for compensation after a trip, slip, or fall in Northern Ireland within three years of the date of your accident. Remember, for childhood personal injury claims you must file within 3 years of turning 18. Time limits can be extended in exceptional circumstances but it is always best to speak to a personal injury solicitor as soon as possible.

Personal Injury Experts Will Enhance Your Case

 

To give yourself the best chance of receiving the maximum possible compensation you could be owed, legal representation is a must-have. Lacey Solicitors have a proven track record in providing expert legal guidance.. With our specialist knowledge of personal injury law there is no one to better represent you within the greater Northern Ireland area.

 

Contact our legal team today to start your claim for compensation after a slip, trip, or fall, in Belfast.

Recent A-Level Results: A Career in Law Awaits!

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

Are you passionate about practising law and ready to embark on your career in a new and innovative way? Our boutique insurance law firm is offering a unique opportunity to combine hands-on legal experience with a fully funded law degree through our prestigious Legal Apprenticeship Programme in conjunction with Ulster University.

As a legal apprentice at Lacey Solicitors, you will immerse yourself in a specialised environment where you will gain invaluable on-the-job experience, assisting and handling a diverse range of cases, all while pursuing your Law degree at Ulster University.

Lacey Solicitors offers specialist legal services to the insurance industry and prides itself on the exemplary, accessible service it provides. Our practice extends to both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and all of our lawyers are dual-qualified in these jurisdictions. Our lawyers provide a specialist focus in a variety of different areas within insurance law ranging from motor liability, public liability, and employers’ liability claims to catastrophic injury and complex policy coverage disputes. Our lawyers are client-facing, problem-solving, forward-thinking individuals who pride themselves on working collaboratively with a view to providing stellar service to our valued clients. We recognise the importance of our junior lawyers and assist them in finding their passion for practice.

Why Choose Our Apprenticeship Programme? Our apprenticeship programme offers a unique pathway that allows you to work as a paid employee within our firm, while concurrently earning a Law degree, with the added benefit of fully funded tuition fees. This means you can focus on honing your legal expertise and academic development, without the financial burden of university costs. As an apprentice, you will spend the majority of your week contributing to our legal teams, working directly under the guidance of a seasoned mentor. You will be exposed to real-world insurance law cases and develop practical skills that are crucial to thriving in the legal profession.


Areas of Expertise and Professional Experience: At Lacey Solicitors, we have handled significant cases that have had a lasting impact on the insurance law landscape, both nationally and internationally. As a legal apprentice, you will have the opportunity to gain hands-on experience in our core practice areas, which include:
• Insurance Litigation
• Personal Injury Law
• Claims Management
• Regulatory Compliance
• Risk Management
• Coverage Disputes

You will be actively involved in various aspects of case management, such as:
• Drafting legal documents
• Liaising with Barristers during the life cycle of a case
• Conducting in-depth legal research on complex insurance matters
• Maintaining detailed case correspondence and documentation
• Assisting in client interviews and witness statements
• Attending Court in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

Why Choose Us?  • Real-World Experience: Work alongside junior and senior lawyers on a wide range of cases, gaining invaluable insights into the legal industry in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

• Earn While You Learn: Receive a competitive salary while studying for a fully accredited law degree, without the burden of tuition fees.

• Tailored Mentorship: Benefit from personalised guidance from our experienced legal professionals, helping you navigate your career path and mentoring you throughout your apprenticeship.

• Boutique Firm Environment: Located in the heart of the Cathedral Quarter, Belfast, and on the doorstep of Ulster University’s Belfast Campus, you will enjoy the close-knit, supportive atmosphere of a boutique firm where your contributions are recognised, nurtured, and valued.


Who Should Apply?
This programme is perfect for ambitious individuals who are:
• Eager to start a rewarding legal career without the traditional student debt.
• Passionate about practising law and eager to make an impact in a specialised field.
• Ready to balance academic rigour with practical, on-the-job training.


Entry Requirements: To be considered for this apprenticeship, you must meet the following academic requirements:
• A’ level grades of ABB or equivalent.
• A minimum of a Grade C in English GCSE or equivalent.
All offers of employment should be conditional offers based on our requirements.


Start Your Journey Today!Don’t miss this opportunity to jumpstart your legal career with a firm that values your growth and contribution. Apply now and be part of a dynamic team where your future in law begins. You should submit your CV along with a covering letter detailing your interest in law, your motivation to join our firm, and why you would make an excellent apprentice.


Application Deadline: 4 p.m. Friday 30th August 2024.

Send your application to: aisling@laceysolicitors.com

Shortlisted candidates will be invited to interview week commencing 2nd September 2024. If you have already accepted your place on a traditional Degree pathway, you are welcome to apply for our Legal Apprenticeship Programme. 

Support and Guidance 

Throughout the apprenticeship, you will receive continuous support from our expert legal team. You will be paired with an Office Mentor and an Academic Advisor from Ulster University who will provide guidance throughout your apprenticeship journey and help ensure your academic and professional success. Your legal career starts here. Are you ready to make it count?

 

A Guide to Choosing the Best Solicitors in Belfast and Northern Ireland

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

Navigating legal issues can be challenging. Whether you need assistance with personal injury claims, insurance law, or business disputes, finding the right solicitor in Belfast is essential. Lacey Solicitors, a leading law firm in Northern Ireland, provides expert legal guidance and representation tailored to your needs.

This guide will help you understand how to choose the right Belfast solicitor, what to look for, and the specialist services offered by Lacey Solicitors.

Understanding the Legal Landscape in Belfast and Northern Ireland

 

Belfast is home to a number of outstanding law firms offering their own range of legal specialisms.

From family law and personal injury claims to corporate law and property transactions, it is important to choose a solicitor in Belfast with expertise in your specific area of law.

By understanding the local legal landscape, you can select a firm that is not only experienced but also highly knowledgeable about Northern Ireland law.

What to Consider When Choosing A Solicitor In Belfast

 

When searching for a Belfast solicitor, there are key factors to consider:

Experience and Expertise

A solicitor with experience in your specific legal area can make a significant difference. Look for firms with a proven track record in handling cases similar to yours.

Lacey Solicitors, founded in 2005 by Terence Lacey, has nearly 20 years of experience in insurance law and personal injury claims across the entire Island of Ireland.

Reputation and Reviews

Check online reviews and client testimonials to understand a firm’s reputation. Highly rated Belfast solicitors often have consistent 5-star reviews for professionalism and results. Lacey Solicitors is proud and thankful for its overwhelmingly positive client feedback on Google.  

Accessibility and Communication

Clear communication is crucial in legal matters. Choose a solicitor in Belfast who is responsive, keeps you informed, and provides guidance throughout your case.

Cost and Transparency

Legal fees can vary. Look for firms that provide clear, upfront information about pricing, potential extra costs, and flexible payment options. Transparent billing ensures there are no surprises.

Types of Legal Services Available with Lacey Solicitors Belfast

 

Lacey Solicitors offers a comprehensive range of services to individuals and insurance companies across Northern Ireland. Their Belfast solicitors specialise in:

• Motor Liability
• Public Liability
• Employers Liability
• Environmental Claims
• Industrial Disease Claims
• Policy Coverage Advice
• Recovery Actions
• Catastrophic Injury Claims
• Cradle to Grave Claims Handling
• Investigation Services

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors in Belfast?

 

  • Nearly 20 years of experience in personal injury and insurance law

  • Highly rated Belfast solicitors with excellent client reviews

  • Comprehensive insurance and injury legal services tailored to individual and corporate clients

  • Transparent pricing and responsive communication

  • Expertise in complex claims, including catastrophic injuries and industrial disease

Contact Lacey Solicitors Belfast Today

 

For trusted, professional legal advice, contact Lacey Solicitors in Belfast. Speak to one of our experienced Belfast solicitors today and ensure your legal matters are handled efficiently and effectively.

Contact the team at Lacey Solicitors here to discuss your legal needs.

Supreme Court Upholds Personal Injuries Guidelines in Delaney v PIAB in ‘Landmark’ Ruling

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

Introduction

 

Following on from our previous briefing, the Supreme Court on 9th April 2024 delivered its much-anticipated decision in Delaney v PIAB, The Judicial Council of Ireland and The Attorney General. The ruling confirms that the Personal Injuries Guidelines remain valid and legally binding, even though part of the Judicial Council Act 2019 was struck down.

This judgment provides certainty for the future of personal injury compensation in Ireland and clarifies the ongoing role of PIAB.

Landmark decision on case ‘of systemic importance’

 

The Court ruled that Brigid Delaney had lost her appeal. The Judicial Council-approved guidelines — which significantly reduced awards for minor injuries — remain binding, and any changes to them must now come through legislation.

A seven-judge panel delivered five separate judgments, with two further judges concurring.

Presiding, Mr Justice Peter Charleton emphasised that the case would affect thousands of future personal-injury claims and “multiples of that” into the future. He described the matter as being “of systemic importance.”

Background to the Case

 

  • On 12 April 2019, Mrs Delaney fell on a footpath in Dungarvan, suffering a minor ankle fracture.

  • Under the Book of Quantum, her damages were estimated at €18,000–€34,000.

  • PIAB instead applied the new Personal Injuries Guidelines, awarding €3,000.

  • She challenged this in the High Court, arguing that the Guidelines were unconstitutional.

Issues Raised

 

The applicant claimed that:

  1. Section 7(2)(g) of the Judicial Council Act 2019 was an impermissible delegation of legislative power.

  2. The Act infringed judicial independence under Article 35.2.

  3. The Guidelines were applied retrospectively, depriving her of vested rights.

  4. Reduced awards infringed her rights to property, bodily integrity, and equality.

High Court Decision

 

Mr Justice Charles Meenan rejected the challenge, holding that:

  • Section 90 of the 2019 Act set out adequate principles and policies.

  • The Judicial Council properly followed these when drafting the Guidelines.

  • Courts retained discretion to depart from the Guidelines, preserving independence.

  • PIAB acted lawfully under the PIAB Act 2003.

Supreme Court Decision

 

The Supreme Court took a narrower approach:

  • By a 5–2 majority, it held that Section 7(2)(g) of the 2019 Act was unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of legislative power.

  • However, this flaw was cured by the Family Leave and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2021, which formally enacted the Guidelines into law.

  • As a result, the Guidelines survived the challenge and remain binding.

  • PIAB’s award of €3,000 was therefore lawful.

Practical Consequences

 

  • Binding effect: The Guidelines are legally binding, with departures allowed only in exceptional circumstances where no reasonable proportion exists.

  • Legislation required: Any future changes must be passed by the Oireachtas.

  • Reviews: A statutory review every three years is required, though amendments may now be delayed.

Conclusion

 

The Delaney v PIAB Supreme Court decision confirms that the Personal Injuries Guidelines remain the law in Ireland. Despite striking down part of the Judicial Council Act 2019, the Supreme Court has provided certainty to claimants, defendants, insurers, and practitioners that the Guidelines will continue to govern the assessment of general damages.

Court of Appeal in Ireland Reduces General Damages: Insights for Insurers

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

For insurers and legal practitioners in Ireland, recent trends in the Court of Appeal’s assessment of general damages for personal injuries are highly relevant. Understanding these developments is essential for managing risk and advising clients effectively.

The Case of O’Daly: A Reduction in Damages

 

On 8th June 2016, Mr O’Daly was cycling near Dublin’s Custom House when a passing bus caused him to fall, fracturing his elbow and spraining his ankle. Following a contested High Court action where liability was disputed, he was initially awarded €100,000 in general damages for pain and suffering.

Last week, the Court of Appeal reduced this award to €55,000, reflecting a continued trend of proportionality and reasonableness in damages assessments.

Early Decisions: Payne v Nugent and Nolan v Wirenski

 

The Court of Appeal, formed in late 2014, quickly established principles for assessing damages. In Payne v Nugent (2015), the Court emphasised that awards must be reasonable relative to the injury sustained and proportionate compared to awards for greater or lesser injuries.

Similarly, in Nolan v Wirenski, the Court reduced a High Court award from €100,000 to €65,000, reinforcing consistency in damage awards.

Recalibration of Awards? Shannon and Cronin Cases

 

Subsequent decisions illustrate that the Court of Appeal’s approach does not constitute a wholesale “recalibration” of awards. In the cases of Mr & Mrs Shannon, high court damages were significantly reduced. Similarly, Miss Cronin, a taxi passenger awarded €180,000, had her award reduced by €75,000.

These examples demonstrate the Court’s consistent focus on reasonableness rather than arbitrary reductions.

Murphy v County Galway Motor Club: When Awards Increase

 

Not all decisions reduce damages. In Murphy v County Galway Motor Club, a spectator injured at a rally saw his general damages raised from €200,000 to €275,000, and contributory negligence was set aside. This case highlights that the Court acts fairly, balancing protection for injured parties with predictability for insurers.

Recent Trends in General Damages Reductions

 

Recent decisions, including McKeown v Crosby, Griffin v Hoare, Quinn v Masivlaniec, and Leidig v O’Neill, show reductions ranging from €70,000 to €35,000, €155,000 to €120,000, and €155,000 to €90,000, respectively. These reflect a deliberate approach to maintain reasonableness and proportionality in awards.

However, the Court has occasionally refused to interfere, as seen in Zhang v Farrell and O’Sullivan v Brozda, underscoring that each case is assessed on its individual merits.

Implications for Insurance Defence Solicitors in Ireland

 

For insurers navigating personal injury claims in Ireland, understanding trends in Court of Appeal awards is crucial. Predictable, proportionate assessments reduce uncertainty in liability exposure.

Our Dublin and Belfast insurance defence solicitors provide expert guidance on defending claims efficiently, helping insurers manage risk while ensuring compliance with current legal standards.

Valuing Psychiatric Injury in Ireland Under the New Guidelines

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

Background: Zagananczyk Case

 

The Court of Appeal has provided further guidance on the valuation of Psychiatric Injury under the new Guidelines. In the Zagananczyk case, the Court upheld the defendant’s appeal, reducing the High Court award from €90,000 to €60,000 for general damages.

High Court Assessment of Psychiatric Injury

 

In the High Court, the trial judge accepted that the plaintiff suffered PTSD in the lower end of the serious category, awarding €45,000. The Court also found a separate, diagnosed psychological injury—an alcohol abuse disorder and depression—categorised at the lower end of moderate, awarding €20,000.

Thus, the High Court’s total award for Psychiatric Injury was €65,000, with an additional €25,000 awarded for burns and scarring.

The Appeal

 

The defendants argued that the trial judge had:

  • Misclassified the PTSD as serious.

  • Incorrectly awarded two separate sums for psychiatric injury.

  • Made an excessive award for scarring.

Applying the Guidelines

 

The Court of Appeal referenced Coffey J in Lipinski (a minor) v Whelan for guidance, particularly in:

  • Valuing Psychiatric Injury.

  • Applying an uplift for lesser injuries.

The Court also commended Murphy J in McHugh v Ferol, which applied a method of valuing the dominant injury, then the additional injuries, and applying a discount (50%) to the lesser injuries.

Reality Check Needed in these Types of Cases

 

Noonan J emphasised:

“Whatever mathematical approach is adopted, it is important not to lose sight of the global impact of all the injuries on the particular plaintiff concerned… If an obvious mismatch emerges, this may suggest that the requisite proportionality has not been achieved… a useful exercise… can provide a helpful ‘reality check.’”

Court of Appeal Assessment of PTSD

 

The Court of Appeal found errors in the High Court’s assessment of Psychiatric Injury:

  • PTSD includes mood disorder; depression is a mood disorder.

  • The trial judge erred in classifying PTSD as serious.

  • A cumulative award of €65,000 was disproportionate, reduced to €35,000 for psychiatric injury.

“Although in my view the PTSD in Lipinski was of a more serious order than in the present case, nonetheless when one factors in the depression and alcohol abuse, even assuming they were to be regarded as separate, I think, as in Lipinski, an award of damages at the top end of the moderate category is justified at €35,000.”

While the High Court judge did not clarify how the uplift was applied to burns and scarring, the Court of Appeal found no error in awarding €25,000 for scarring.

Final Outcome of the Court of Appeal

 

The Court of Appeal reduced the total general damages award from €90,000 to €60,000, providing clarity on proportional valuation of psychiatric injury under the new Guidelines.

Irish Court of Appeal Confirms High Court Should Have Heard Defendant’s Summons

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

Background: Sherry v Murphy & Ors

 

In Sherry v Murphy & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a High Court judgment and order that refused to fix a date for the hearing of a motion brought by a defendant. The motion challenged the adequacy of a Personal Injury Summons, with the defendant seeking several orders based on alleged failures to comply with High Court procedure and the requirements of Part 2 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004.

High Court Decision

 

When the motion was called, counsel for the defendant requested that a date be fixed for its hearing. This request was opposed by counsel for the plaintiff, who argued that the case’s progress was impeded because the first defendant had not yet delivered a defence and was seeking to have his motion assessed in advance.

The High Court judge ruled that the defendant should first deliver his defence and then bring his motion, which could be considered alongside the main hearing. The judge declined to strike out the motion but adjourned it generally and reserved the costs.

Substance of the Appeal

 

The appeal argued that the High Court judge’s discretion to adjourn the motion irredeemably prejudiced the defendant. It was contended that the order defeated the objectives of Part 2 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004 and failed to properly balance justice between the parties.

The Court of Appeal noted that while the claim that the order irredeemably defeated the Act’s objectives may have been overstated, the defendant had a valid argument that the requirements of the Act had not been met in the way the claim was pleaded.

Court of Appeal Findings

 

The Court of Appeal considered the correct High Court procedure and allowed the appeal, remitting the motion to the High Court for hearing. The Court acknowledged the challenges judges face in managing busy lists and limited resources, stating:

“I acknowledge that in the management of busy lists and scarce resources a significant margin of appreciation must be afforded to the list judge but in my view, he was led into error by the summary of the issues. In my view, the refusal of the High Court judge to fix a date for the hearing of the motion created a substantial risk of significant procedural unfairness coupled with a likelihood that no effective remedial action could be put in place later to address the very significant additional costs to which the first defendant was exposed in the event that his application proved to be successful.”

McHugh v Ferol: Court Confirms Uplift for Secondary Injuries Can Exceed Dominant Injury Award

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

In the case of McHugh v Ferol, the Court examined an important issue in personal injury law: whether the uplift for less dominant injuries can exceed the value of the dominant injury award. The Court referenced the approach taken by Coffey J in The Lipinski Judgement, noting that current guidelines for general damages do not provide a clear process for calculating uplifts to ensure that a claimant receives fair and just compensation for all injuries suffered.

Understanding Uplift in Personal Injury Cases

 

In legal terms, “uplift” simply means to increase. The Court emphasised that damages awarded for non-dominant injuries can, in some circumstances, exceed the amount awarded for the main or dominant injury. There is nothing in the guidelines to suggest that the uplift must be limited to a proportion of the dominant injury award.

This principle recognises that claimants suffering multiple serious injuries may not be adequately compensated if the uplift is artificially restricted. By allowing the uplift to exceed the dominant injury, the Court ensures that all additional pain, suffering, and functional limitations are considered fairly.

How the Court Assessed Uplift in McHugh v Ferol

 

In this case, while the Court confirmed that an uplift could exceed the dominant injury award, it did not apply this principle for the specific circumstances of the claimant.

  • The dominant injury was assessed at €60,000.
  • The cumulative value of less dominant injuries was €65,000.
  • The Judge, Murphy J, applied a practical approach, setting the uplift at half of the cumulative value, resulting in €32,500.

“Taking into account the roll-up factor and the overlap of injuries, the court considers that an uplift of €32,500 represents fair and just compensation for all the additional pain, discomfort and limitations arising from the plaintiff’s lesser injuries.”

This methodology ensures that all injuries are recognised and valued, while avoiding overcompensation for overlapping or related harms when dealing with an uplift in Personal Injury Compensation in Ireland

Lessons for Insurers in Calculating Uplift in Personal Injury Compensation in Ireland

 

The McHugh v Ferol judgment provides important guidance for solicitors and claimants in personal injury litigation:

  • Uplifts for less dominant injuries are not automatically capped by the dominant injury award.
  • Courts have discretion to determine a proportionate and fair uplift based on the cumulative impact of multiple injuries.
  • Proper assessment of pain, suffering, and functional limitations is critical to ensure just compensation.
  • The case highlights the importance of presenting detailed evidence of all injuries and their impact when seeking damages.

This decision reinforces the principle that personal injury awards must reflect the full scope of a claimant’s suffering, particularly where multiple injuries are involved.

 

Construction Site Safety: The Role of the Project Supervisor and Contributory Negligence

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

 

A recent judgment by Mr Justice Sanfey examined the role of the Project Supervisor on a construction site and clarified the extent of a contractor’s duties under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2013.

Duty of the Project Supervisor in Construction Site Safety

 

The Court accepted the Defendant’s argument that a contractor or Project Supervisor is not under an absolute duty to ensure a construction site is completely safe and free from risk of injury.

Article 30 of the 2013 Regulations explicitly states that this duty applies “so far as is reasonably practicable”, providing flexibility while maintaining a high standard of safety oversight.

Findings on Liability

 

In this case:

  • The safety statement prepared by the Defendant was found to be deficient, establishing primary liability with the Defendant.
  • The Plaintiff was found to have contributed to the incident through contributory negligence, by adopting a method of work that was inherently unsafe.

This judgment highlights the balance between contractor responsibilities and the practical limitations of maintaining safety on construction sites.

Warnings for Contractors and Project Supervisors

 

  1. Reasonable Practicability: When considering Construciton Site Safety, contractors must ensure safety measures are implemented to a reasonable standard, considering cost, time, and practicality.
  2. Safety Statements Matter: A deficient safety statement can expose contractors to primary liability.
  3. Contributory Negligence: Workers or supervisors adopting unsafe methods may reduce the recoverable damages in a claim.
  4. Compliance: Adhering to the 2013 Regulations is crucial to mitigate liability.

This judgment serves as a reminder for Project Supervisors, contractors, and construction firms that while safety obligations are high, they are measured against what is reasonably practicable. Proper planning, effective safety statements, and safe work practices remain critical to protecting both employees and employers.

Speak to an Expert at Lacey Solicitors today.

Are you missing out on quality advice? Get in touch today to speak to one of our experts.

Send Message

Quick Links

Dublin

Ormond Building, 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7, D07 EE37
+353 1 5134375

Belfast

3rd Floor, 18-22 Hill Street, Cathedral Quarter, Belfast, BT1 2LA
+44 28 9089 6540

© 2025 Lacey Solicitors. All Rights Reserved

Made with by VINDICTA®