The Government continues to address Insurance Reform in Ireland and has now published its latest Action Plan, covering the period 2025–2029. Building on what the Government will portray as the success of the previous plan, this new programme sets out targeted legal reforms aimed at strengthening the role of the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB), continuing to monitor personal injury awards, and introducing greater structure and transparency in legal costs.

The plan comes barely a fortnight after Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan bowed to pressure on a plan by the Judicial Council to hike personal injury award guidelines by almost 17 per cent, confirming that he will not ask the Oireachtas to rubber stamp the judiciary’s proposed tweak to payouts.

According to Minister of State Robert Troy, “Insurance is a cornerstone of a well-functioning economy. This Action Plan is about levelling the playing field and restoring confidence for consumers and businesses alike.”

While this announcement signals a continuation of reform efforts, it also highlights renewed focus on legal costs and the IRB’s evolving remit, prompting varied responses.

Overview of the 2025–2029 Action Plan for Insurance Reform in Ireland

The Action Plan outlines a series of measures staged over 2026 and 2027, including:

Measures Planned for 2026

• Benchmarking Irish Personal Injury Awards
  A comparative exercise will benchmark Irish personal injury awards against those in the UK and other European jurisdictions to ensure consistency and fairness.

• Amendments to the Judicial Council Act 2019
  These amendments will adjust the review cycle of the Personal Injuries Guidelines (PIGs), mandate consultation between the Judicial Council and the IRB, and clarify the Oireachtas’s role in future guideline reviews.

• Research into IRB Award Acceptance Rates
  The Government will examine why some IRB awards are rejected by claimants to inform future policy.

• Examination of Award Caps
  The feasibility of introducing caps on awards for certain minor or moderate injuries will be explored.

• Development of a Model for Minor Soft Tissue Injuries
  Consideration will be given to a dedicated resolution process for these common claims.

Measures Planned for 2027

• Strengthening the IRB’s Powers and Remit
  The plan proposes making mediation the default resolution process, remitting claims back to the IRB when new evidence arises (though the practicality of this remains to be seen where medical evidence from both Claimant and Defence often evolves as cases progress, and repeatedly returning claims to the Board could cause procedural delays), and allowing legal fees to be awarded in IRB-resolved claims.

• Developing New Guidelines for Legal Fees
  The Government intends to set clear rates and scales for legal fees in civil litigation, particularly personal injury cases – akin to the County Court Scale used in Northern Ireland Personal Injury Cases.

Legal Costs: The Final Frontier in Insurance Reform in Ireland

The renewed focus on legal costs reflects their status as the last major variable yet to be comprehensively addressed. Over the past four to five years, inflation in party-party legal costs has been substantial, as affirmed by decisions of County Registrars and the Legal Costs Adjudicator.

Insurers view these escalating legal fees as an urgent problem to be tackled. Once general damages were controlled through the Judicial Guidelines, it became inevitable that attention would shift to these escalating costs. The proposed reforms to legal fee structures and transparency are intended to reduce unpredictability and overall claims expenditure.

Strengthening the Injuries Resolution Board: A Contested Approach

The IRB reforms are central to the Action Plan. Expanding the Board’s powers, including default mediation, remittal of claims with new evidence, and awarding legal fees for Board-resolved claims, aim to reduce litigation and improve efficiency.

Responses from Claimant Advocates and Victims’ Campaigners 

While the Government emphasises transparency and efficiency, victims’ campaigners warn that the reforms risk diminishing access to justice and pushing claimants toward self-representation in an increasingly complex legal system.

The main points raised are:

• The IRB’s increasing powers, aim to reduce litigation, but it is also to steer more claimants towards self-representation in what many Claimant Advocates will say is a govenment body set up by insurers and staffed by insurers.  Ultimately it fringes on jeapordising access to Justice.  Data from the Irish Central Bank, they say, underscores that claimants with legal representation receive substantially higher awards than those who self-represent.

• Benchmarking personal injury awards against UK and European standards risks a “race to the bottom” which undermines the integrity of our entire legal system by prioritising profit over justice.

• Whilst the goal of these reforms is “a balanced, predictable, and just system – one that protects rights while enabling a sustainable and affordable insurance market” the propose introduction of a ‘cap‘ for certain categories of damages particularly in minor/moderate personal injuries, they say, is a step too far.

• Critically, they say that the entire document refers to ‘key-stakeholders‘ repeatedly but Ireland is lacking in a unified claimant voice in policy debates, unlike advocacy groups seen in the UK such as APIL.

“The submissions highlighted recurring themes including concerns about the cost and
availability of insurance, the impact of legal fees on premiums, the challenges faced by
sectors and the need for greater transparency in pricing and claims handling. Respondents
also emphasised the importance of cultural and behavioural change, particularly in relation
to claims practices and litigation trends.”

There is no input here from a unified claimant voice on the rights of the Claimants and this, say Claimant advocates, is a problem that needs addressed.

Conclusion: Balancing Cost Control and Access to Justice

The Government’s 2025–2029 Action Plan marks an important stage in Ireland’s insurance reform journey, particularly through its focus on legal costs and the IRB. While the aim of reducing insurance premiums is clear, the impact on claimants’ access to justice, compensation levels, and legal representation must be carefully monitored.

Use our online portal to discuss the future landscape of insurance in Ireland with one of our Solicitors.

Contact Lacey Solicitors

If you are an insurer or claims handler seeking expert legal advice on motor insurance claims, contact Lacey Solicitors today. Our dedicated insurance defence teams in Dublin and Belfast are here to support you with strategic litigation, claims resolution, and regulatory compliance.

Some workplace accidents are just that – accidents. Not every mishap at work is a legal wrong, and the High Court in Ireland has made that distinction very clear in a recent case involving a stable hand, a wheelbarrow, and a claim that didn’t make it out of the starting gate.

In Lawless v. Keatley [2025] IEHC 364, Mr. Justice Twomey dismissed a personal injury claim brought by Mark Lawless, a former stable hand, who said he injured his back while emptying a wheelbarrow of soiled hay at a horse training yard.

So, what was the problem? The Court found the incident was no more than “an unfortunate everyday mishap” – the kind of thing that could just as easily happen in someone’s back garden as on an employer’s premises.

“If it had happened at home…”

This is the exact comparison Mr. Justice Twomey used to open his judgment, setting the tone for the judgment that followed:

“If this incident had occurred in Mr. Lawless’ home/garden, it would be regarded as an unfortunate everyday mishap or an accident… where no one was to blame.”

It is a powerful means to illustrate the issue; just because something happens at work doesn’t automatically mean someone must be held legally responsible, particularly not the employer or their insurer.

Common Sense Prevails in Workplace Accident Claims 

Mr. Lawless claimed the injury happened while he was tipping a heavy wheelbarrow on an incline of hay and dung. The Court was not convinced – both in relation to how the injury happened, and also the need for engineering experts to weigh in on something so straightforward.

“A court does not require an engineer to tell it that one should empty a wheelbarrow on the flat… this is basic common sense.”

The Court referred to a similar case, Nemeth v. Topaz Energy Group Ltd, where a woman claimed she injured her knee while bending down at work. That claim was also dismissed, with the Court noting that some things, such as bending down or emptying a wheelbarrow, are so commonplace that they do not need expert analysis.

“An Employer is not an Insurer of an Employee”

It is a blunt but important reminder.

In other words, just because an employer has insurance doesn’t mean they are automatically liable for every accident that happens on their premises. What matters is whether there was negligence. As the judge put it:

“To put it another way, the presence (or indeed absence) of insurance has absolutely no relevance to the key issue in personal injuries cases. An unfortunate everyday mishap does not become someone’s fault because it happens on the premises of an employer with insurance (or on the premises of a person with means). The test remains has the employer failed to exercise reasonable care? This is the key principle to be taken from the Nemeth case for all businesses, but particularly small businesses, like the individual horserace trainer in this case (who was operating personally and not through a company), when faced with claims for unfortunate everyday mishaps from employees (or indeed members of the public that happen to occur on their premises.”

The finer details are key – Especially in Pleadings

One issue that seriously undermined Mr. Lawless’ case was how it was Pleaded. His claim about tipping the wheelbarrow on an incline in an unusual manner wasn’t even mentioned in the original court documents. It only showed up years later – after his engineer weighed in.

Under Ireland’s Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, Plaintiffs are required to plead their cases clearly and in detail.  All Defendants are entitled to know the case which was being made against them and in this case they were not provided with sufficient precision in the pleadings regarding the case they had to answer.  That didn’t happen here, and it was one of the main reasons the Court gave for dismissing the claim.

Personal Responsibility

Even if the incident happened the way Mr. Lawless later claimed, the Court found he could have avoided it. He had options: ask for the area to be cleared, or level the surface himself. Instead, he chose what the judge called a “most unorthodox manoeuvre.”

“This is not an unsafe system of work, but rather an employee who has no regard for his own safety.”

Conclusion for Workplace Accident Claims in Ireland

This case is a reminder that common sense is key and not all workplace injuries automatically justify compensation.  Often sited by Plaintiff lawyers is the mantra, “one should not go to work and return home with an injury” as a justification for a claim for damages.

This case is a reminder to all that negligence must be proven, pleadings must be specific and common sense will prevail.

In what is undoubtedly a win for insurers dealing with workplace accident claims in Ireland, Justice Twomey concludes;

“The fact that the employer, or owner of the premises, had the foresight to take out insurance has no bearing on the legal treatment of the accident and that person is not held to be at fault for an unfortunate everyday mishap that could just as easily happen in the home as on his/her premises.”

Lacey Solicitors – Insurance Lawyers Dublin & Belfast

For employers, particularly in high-risk sectors like agriculture, equine, construction, or hospitality, this decision offers reassurance—but also a crucial takeaway: the need to maintain reasonable systems of work and detailed records, and to ensure all health and safety practices are both proportionate and practical. Ultimately, an employer is not an insurer of their employee, and a compensation claim will only succeed if there is a proven breach of duty.

At Lacey Solicitors, we provide comprehensive Employer’s Liability training sessions, designed specifically for claims handlers, insurance professionals, and in-house legal teams. These sessions focus on the evolving legal standards and procedural nuances of employer liability claims across both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, ensuring your team is fully up to date with:

• Recent High Court and Court of Appeal decisions dealing with Workplace accident claims in Ireland

• Key case law, including the application of common sense tests in personal injury cases

• Best practices in pleadings, disclosure, and expert evidence

• The impact of procedural legislation, including the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004

• Strategies for defending speculative or poorly-pleaded claims

As an all-island insurance law firm, Lacey Solicitors has deep, practical experience in navigating claims and regulatory differences between jurisdictions. Whether your organisation is operating in Belfast, Cork, Dublin, or Derry, we understand the legal and commercial realities faced by insurers and employers alike.

Our training is interactive, practical, and completely tailored to your team—whether you prefer in-person sessions, online workshops, or bespoke legal briefings for senior management.

To discuss how Lacey Solicitors can support your claims strategy or arrange a tailored Employer’s Liability training session, please get in touch via the Contact Us  section of our website.

Overview

In Owen McFerran v Sean O’Connor, The Chief Constable of the PSNI, and The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service ([2025] NICA 35), the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal delivered an interesting judgment on the use of split trials in personal injury litigation. The court upheld the High Court’s refusal to order a Split Trial, reinforcing the principle that such orders remain exceptional and must be justified by clear procedural or substantive advantages.

This article explores the factual background, procedural developments, and wider implications of the Court of Appeal’s decision—particularly its impact on the appetite for split trials in serious injury cases as well as the suitability of mediation.

Factual Background

The case arose from a tragic road traffic incident in January 2018. The plaintiff, Owen McFerran, then aged 21, was walking along the Moneynick Road with his girlfriend, Shannon McQuillan, when both were struck by a van driven by the first defendant, Sean O’Connor. Ms McQuillan died at the scene, and Mr McFerran sustained catastrophic brain injuries.

Earlier that night, the couple had been involved in an incident requiring ambulance and police intervention. Ms McQuillan, heavily intoxicated, had been removed from the ambulance after becoming abusive. The couple were left at a bus stop and began walking along the unlit road where the collision occurred.

Proceedings were issued against the driver, the Chief Constable of the PSNI, and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. Each defendant denied liability, and contributory negligence was pleaded against the plaintiff.

Procedural History and Appeal

Initially, Master Bell ordered a split trial, with liability to be determined first. However, this was overturned by Colton J in the High Court, who found that the complexity of the liability issues did not justify separating them from quantum.

The First Defendant appealed, arguing that the judge gave undue weight to the plaintiff’s brain injury, applied the wrong legal test, and failed to properly consider the overriding objective under Order 1 Rule 1A.

Why Split Trials in Northern Ireland May be Requested

It is common for parties in complex personal injury compensation claims to request a split trial, particularly in cases of substantial value. There may be various reasons, including:

• Disputes on liability,
• Complex issues relating to causation, or
• The fact that quantum simply cannot be assessed for many years due to the claimant being a child or the injury being so severe that the full extent will not be known for some time.

Usually, the issue of liability is tried first. The courts in the past have been keen to accommodate this if it can be shown that a split trial would not only save time, but also costs, whilst serving the interests of those involved. Each case turns on its own facts and circumstances.

Split trials can offer practical advantages:

• Shorter initial hearings: The liability phase of a split trial typically requires less court time than a full trial, making it easier to schedule and potentially bringing forward hearing dates.
• Early resolution: If liability is resolved early—either through judgment or settlement—parties may avoid the need for a quantum hearing altogether.
• Focused preparation: Parties can concentrate resources on the most contentious issues first, which may lead to more efficient litigation overall.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal, led by Keegan LCJ, dismissed the appeal. The court reaffirmed that split trials are exceptional and the default remains a single trial unless there is a “real and substantial advantage” in splitting.

The court found that the presence of three defendants, differing legal duties, and factual disputes made it unlikely that a liability-only trial would dispose of the case. The trial judge had properly exercised discretion, considering delay, cost, and the need for active case management.

The Waning Appetite for Split Trials in Northern Ireland

The McFerran decision reflects a broader judicial trend: the courts are increasingly reluctant to order split trials, especially in cases involving catastrophic injuries and multiple defendants. This reluctance stems from the recognition that:

• Overlap of Evidence: In many cases, the evidence relevant to liability is deeply intertwined with that required to assess quantum. Splitting the trial risks duplication of effort and the need for witnesses to give evidence twice.
• Cost Efficiency: The courts are guided by the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and efficiently. Separate trials can lead to increased legal costs, procedural delays, and inefficient use of court resources.
• Settlement Prospects: A single, unified trial often enhances the likelihood of settlement. When all issues are on the table, parties are better positioned to evaluate risk and negotiate resolution.

A Brief Note on Mediation

It is not unreasonable for the party against whom complex legal claims had been made to maintain its entitlement to have those issues resolved by the court.  That said, this case invites reflection on the role of mediation in complex personal injury litigation.

The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service Digital Modernisation Plan, launched in 2021 by Sir Declan Morgan and Naomi Long, places ADR at the heart of its Vision 2030 strategy. The NICTS portfolio of Modernisation Programmes for delivery is now known as Vision 2030 (whose oversight committee includes which includes the Lady Chief Justice, the Department of Justice Permanent Secretary and the NICTS Acting Director and our own Mr Ruaidhrí Austin, Partner), aims to expand ADR use across the justice system.

In McFerran, the need for judicial resolution on liability likely outweighed the benefits of early mediation but it must be said that the virtues and advantages of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are now almost universally recognised. Mediation has flourished in a legal landscape where civil litigation—despite decades of reform—continues to suffer from the three persistent mischiefs of expense, delay, and uncertainty.

Mediation is often promoted as a cost-effective alternative to trial however, mediation is not without its drawbacks. In high-value, multi-party cases like McFerran, the costs of mediation can be significant, and its effectiveness may be limited where parties seek judicial determination on fundamental legal issues.  In such cases, mediation may prove to be procedurally complex, time-intensive, and expensive..  An unsuccessful mediation could add a very significant additional layer to the costs of the proceedings not to mention the mediator’s fees.  The party who ultimately lost the litigation would likely have to bear those additional costs.  Arguably, one or more of the Defendant’s could argue that it would be wholly unreasonable to expect them to accept an invitation to mediate when, depending on the outcome of the liability issues, they might never have to address the damages claim at all.

Lacey Solicitors – Insurance Lawyers

At Lacey Solicitors, we have a track record of advising and representing insurers in complex and high-value personal injury litigation across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Our firm has roots firmly in Insurance, and we understand the commercial, procedural, and reputational considerations that arise in these cases.

The decision in McFerran v O’Connor reinforces the importance of active case management and strategic litigation planning from the outset — particularly in multi-defendant claims or those involving catastrophic injury. Our team regularly advises insurers on:

• The merits of requesting (or resisting) a split trial;

• Liability risk analysis and evidential preparation;

• ADR options, including when mediation may or may not be appropriate;

• Trial strategy, cost containment, and long-term file resolution planning.

We are trusted by Irish insurers for clear, tactical advice and robust representation.

If you wish to discuss this case or another complex personal injury matter, please use our online portal.