At Lacey Solicitors, we’ve helped countless individuals across Belfast and Northern Ireland get the compensation they deserve after suffering injuries that were not their fault. But too often, myths, misconceptions and misinformation prevent people from even speaking to a personal injury lawyer.

In this post, we break down the 10 most common personal injury myths, explain the truth behind them, and show how our team of experienced solicitors can support you every step of the way.

---

Myth #1 – I Feel Embarrassed About Claiming Compensation

 

Media headlines and phrases such as “compensation culture” have made many people feel ashamed about making a legitimate claim. But if you’ve been injured through no fault of your own, you have a legal right to be compensated.

Lord Dyson, the third most senior judge in England and Wales, has dismissed the existence of a compensation culture in the UK as a false perception and a “media-created myth.”

Professor Lofsted, who was also asked to review the issue by the UK Government stated in his report “The ‘compensation culture’ (or the perception of it) in the UK has been the subject of several reviews over the last few years,, but no evidence has been presented for its existence”.

Some individuals may seek damages to which they are not entitled, but this is not unique to personal injury law and is true of any area of legal practice.   Fraudulent claims are very much the exception to the rule and far outweighed in number by genuine personal injury claims made by honest people.

At Lacey Solicitors, we regularly see clients who minimise their injuries out of fear of judgment. We’re here to remind you that seeking justice is not something to feel guilty about—it’s your right.

---

Myth #2 – Personal Injury Claims Are Only for Serious Accidents

 

It’s a myth that you can only claim for life-altering or catastrophic injuries. The truth is, you may be entitled to compensation for a wide range of injuries—including whiplash, soft-tissue damage, or a slip and fall—as long as someone else was responsible.

Even minor injuries can lead to lost income, medical expenses, and long-term discomfort, and you shouldn’t bear that burden if the accident was not your fault.

---

Myth #3 – My Medical History Prevents Me from Claiming

 

Think you can’t claim because you’ve had back problems before or made a similar claim in the past?

If your accident exacerbated an existing condition or caused new symptoms, you may still be eligible for compensation. Every case is evaluated on its individual merits, and our solicitors know how to present your medical history in a way that supports your claim.

The key is always to be up-front and honest about any relevant history.  If you fail to disclose a relevant medical history, it can prohibit you from receiving compensation.

---

Myth #4 – Insurers Won’t Believe Me Because It Was a Low-Speed Collision

 

A growing number of Defences now include a Defence of Low Velocity Impact (LVI) —suggesting that the accident was too minor to cause injury.  Legally speaking, a defence which asserts that the collision was a low-velocity impact is a challenge to the causation of injury.

At Lacey Solicitors, we believe in collaboration between insurers and injured victims and so we regularly see these types of arguments.  We work closely with independent leading experts to support our clients’ cases. We’ve helped many clients succeed even when insurers initially denied their claims.

---

Myth #5 – You Can’t Claim for Psychological Injuries

 

Not all injuries are physical. Many people suffer emotional or psychological trauma—such as anxiety, PTSD, or stress—after an accident.

You are absolutely entitled to claim for psychological harm, and our Personal injury lawyers have successfully handled numerous cases where these types of injuries were the main focus. We work with medical professionals to provide the evidence needed to support your case.

---

Myth #6 – Personal Injury Claims Take Years to Settle

 

While some complex cases can take longer, many personal injury claims in Northern Ireland are resolved in a matter of months, especially when liability is clear and medical evidence is straightforward.

Lacey Solicitors is committed to handling your claim efficiently and keeping you updated throughout the process to minimise stress and delays.

---

Myth #7 – I Don’t Need a Solicitor for a Small Claim

 

Even if your injury is minor, you should always speak to a solicitor before accepting any settlement. Insurance companies may offer a quick payout, but it may not reflect the true cost of your recovery.

We help you calculate the full impact of your injury—including time off work, ongoing treatment, and emotional trauma—to ensure you receive fair compensation.

---

Myth #8 – The Process Is Too Complicated for Me to Handle

 

The legal system can feel overwhelming, especially after an accident. But that’s where we come in.

From the moment you contact Lacey Solicitors, we handle everything—from gathering evidence and dealing with insurers to negotiating your settlement—so you can focus on recovering.

---

Myth #9 – It’s Too Expensive to Make a Personal Injury Claim

 

Many people are put off by the fear of legal costs, but at Lacey Solicitors, our solicitors are committed to being transparent about all costs and legal fees. We believe there are better, more ethical alternatives to no win, no fee agreements, (which are illegal in Northern Ireland) which will give you the legal support you need no matter what your financial circumstances.

This starts with a free initial consultation. We will listen to your situation, offer legal advice on whether your claim is viable and present you with possible options for proceeding — free of charge. If you decide to start a claim, we will use a range of options to maximise the compensation you receive and minimise your legal fees.

---

Myth #10 – I Can’t Claim Because I Think it Was My Fault

 

Even if you believe you were partly responsible for the accident—such as not wearing a seatbelt or crossing the road outside a pedestrian crossing—you may still be entitled to compensation under contributory negligence laws in Northern Ireland.

Your compensation may be reduced depending on your level of responsibility, but it does not prevent you from making a claim. We’ll work with you to properly assess fault and make sure your role is fairly represented and your rights are protected.

---

Lacey Solicitors Top Tip: Photos Can Make or Break Your Personal Injury Lawyers Case

 

If you’re in an accident, use your smartphone or dashcam to photograph:

• The vehicles involved

• Road conditions and street signs

• Your injuries (if visible)

• The overall scene

This kind of visual evidence can significantly strengthen your case obtain details you might not have realised were important and help establish liability early in the process.

---

Need Advice? Speak to Belfast’s Trusted Personal Injury Lawyers

 

With decades of experience helping clients throughout Northern Ireland, Personal Injury Lawyers, Lacey Solicitors, are here to help you understand your rights and get the compensation you deserve.

📞 Call us today on 028 90896540
📧 Or email us at info@laceysolicitors.com
📍 Visit our office in Belfast or Dublin for a free, no-obligation consultation

Don’t let fear or misinformation stop you. Our Personal Injury Lawyers are here to support you—start your claim with confidence.

Important Developments for Insurance Defence Practitioners and the District Court Costs Scale Following Nolan v. County Registrar (IECA, 2025)

---

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Kevin Nolan v. County Registrar for the County of Waterford & Ors. [2025] IECA 110 offers significant clarification on the legal treatment of costs in personal injury litigation where proceedings are brought in the Circuit Court but damages ultimately fall within the jurisdiction of the District Court.

This judgment will be of particular interest to insurers and defence solicitors dealing with District Court personal injury claims. It underscores the principle that parties who choose to litigate in a higher court bear the risk of recovering only lower jurisdictional costs if their award does not justify the forum.

---

Case Background

Kevin Nolan suffered a personal injury while walking along a public footpath in Dungarvan in April 2018. Proceedings were issued in the Circuit Court against multiple defendants, including Waterford City and County Council, KC Cable Vision Ltd, and Virgin Media. After a fully contested hearing, he was awarded €8,000 in damages — a figure well within the jurisdiction of the District Court. A differential costs order was made, awarding Nolan costs on the District Court scale.

Despite the scale order, Nolan’s legal team submitted a bill of costs amounting to €32,986.89. The County Registrar allowed costs of €8,755.78, applying the District Court scale. This sparked judicial review proceedings in which Nolan challenged the legality of the scale, the Registrar’s application of it, and broader issues relating to legal costs regulation.

---

Main Issues on Appeal

There were four core issues considered by the Court of Appeal:

1. Whether the District Court scale of costs unlawfully restricted recoverable costs under s.17(4) of the Courts Act 1981.

2. Whether the County Registrar had failed to discharge his duty under s.141 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

3. Whether the scale and relevant rules were ultra vires the District Court Rules Committee.

4. Whether the appellant’s constitutional right of access to the courts had been breached.

---

Findings of the Court

1. District Court Scale Is Lawful and Proportionate
The Court upheld the validity of the District Court scale of costs, affirming the High Court’s interpretation. It accepted that fixing costs for the “doing of a specified thing in a particular form of action” — such as obtaining a judgment in a defended claim — was permissible under s.17(4). The Court reaffirmed the legislative policy underpinning differential costs orders: to ensure proportionality between the amount of damages awarded and the legal costs incurred, and to promote litigation in the appropriate jurisdiction.

This decision is a strong endorsement of the cost-efficiency principle long recognised in Irish personal injury litigation. The Court noted that proceedings brought unnecessarily in a higher court place undue cost burdens on defendants and the justice system, and that rules like the District Court scale help prevent this.

2. Breach of Statutory Duty Under s.141
Significantly, the Court found that the County Registrar failed to comply with s.141 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. That section obliges a County Registrar, when taxing costs, to have regard to the reasonableness principles set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. The Registrar’s decision had relied solely on the scale and made no reference to those statutory principles.

Although the point had not been raised at the adjudication hearing, the Court held that the obligation under s.141 was clear and mandatory. As such, the Registrar’s failure to apply it invalidated the adjudication. The decision was quashed and remitted.

This finding introduces a new procedural safeguard that insurance defence practitioners should be aware of, particularly in cases involving differential cost orders where District Court scales are applied by a County Registrar.

3. No Breach of Access to Justice
The Court dismissed Nolan’s claim that the operation of the costs regime infringed his constitutional right of access to the courts. He had, in fact, accessed the courts and obtained a decree. The discrepancy between the costs claimed and those awarded, in the Court’s view, did not amount to a denial of access.

Importantly, the Court also noted that Nolan had not availed of options under the rules that allow for exceptions — such as seeking increased costs due to special circumstances — and that his claim lacked evidential support.

4. District Court Rules Committee Acted Within Its Powers
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that Order 53 of the District Court Rules and the associated costs schedule were ultra vires the rule-making powers granted under s.91 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924. The rules were found to fall squarely within the scope of “practice and procedure” and “questions of costs,” and did not intrude upon legislative functions reserved to the Oireachtas.

The Court distinguished the facts from those in DPP v. McGrath, where a rule completely precluding recovery of costs was struck down as a policy choice outside the scope of the Rules Committee. In contrast, the District Court scale provides for costs recovery, includes exceptions for special circumstances, and is subject to regular review.

---

Practical Implications for Insurers and Defence Lawyers

This judgment reinforces the existing framework around differential costs and confirms the limited recoverability of legal costs when proceedings are brought in a higher jurisdiction unnecessarily.

• Forum Selection Remains Crucial
  Plaintiffs who issue in the Circuit Court when the District Court is appropriate may face cost consequences, even if successful. Defence teams should continue to challenge jurisdiction early and flag cost exposure where possible.

• Emphasis on Cost Proportionality
  The Court’s interpretation of s.17(4) strengthens the rationale that costs must be proportionate to the level of damages. It gives further support to insurers resisting inflated costs claims where damages are modest.

• Challenges to the District Court Costs Scale Unlikely to Succeed
  The Court has made clear that the District Court Costs Scale is legally sound and within the authority of the Rules Committee. Arguments that the scale unlawfully restricts access to justice or oversteps its mandate are unlikely to gain traction in future.

---

Conclusion

This case provides helpful clarification for practitioners and insurers alike. It confirms the continuing validity of the District Court Costs Scale in the context of differential costs orders, while also reinforcing that County Registrars must apply the legal cost assessment principles set out in the 2015 Act. The ruling strikes a balance between efficiency in legal proceedings and statutory fairness in cost adjudications — and is likely to be cited in many cost disputes going forward.

Should you require any further information on legal costs in Ireland, use our online contact portal to speak to a member of the team.