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

Lacey Solicitors Property Department – Award-Winning Conveyancing in Northern Ireland

Posted on 21 October 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

Lacey Solicitors is proud to announce that our Property Department has again been recognised for client care in property law, by achieving Silver at the ESTAs NI Conveyancer Awards 2025. Lacey Solicitors was also a finalist at the 2025 Irish Law Awards as Property Law Firm of the Year. These accolades reflect our commitment to exceptional service and building trust with clients across Northern Ireland.

Expert Property Solicitors in Northern Ireland

Our Property Department officially opened in 2024, led by William Wilson, a seasoned conveyancing solicitor dedicated to modern, client-focused property services. Since its launch, the department has focused on:

Being accessible and providing clear, practical advice throughout the property transaction process
Ensuring efficient and timely completion of conveyancing matters
Building long-term relationships with clients, estate agents, and mortgage advisors
Delivering a transparent and client-focused service

Under William’s leadership, Lacey Solicitors has become a trusted name for residential and commercial conveyancing in Northern Ireland.

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors?

When it comes to property law, clients want solicitors they can trust. William Wilson, Head of our Property Department, explains the vision behind our approach:

“Starting a property department from scratch in Northern Ireland is a significant challenge, primarily due to stringent lender requirements and the existing frameworks of many property firms. A lot of firms are set in their ways, relying on traditional practices that can hinder innovation.

Rather than joining an established firm solely for its reputation, I saw an opportunity to develop a client-centred approach that emphasises communication, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.

Lacey Solicitors already boasts a proven track record in client care, evidenced by their Lexcel accreditation. This recognition demonstrates their commitment to quality service, which aligns perfectly with my vision for the new property department. Additionally, their significant investment in legal technology positions us to streamline processes and enhance client interactions effectively.

By starting the property department here, we can leverage Lacey’s existing strengths while implementing a fresh perspective focused on the client experience. I believe this approach not only differentiates us from traditional property firms but also meets the evolving demands of clients in today’s market.”

ESTAS Award Recognition – A Testament to Client Care

The ESTAS Awards have been recognising service excellence in the property sector for over 21 years. Unlike other awards, ESTAS are based solely on verified client feedback, making them a true reflection of service quality.

Being awarded Silver in the 2025 NI Conveyancer Awards highlights Lacey Solicitors’ commitment to:

Delivering service from the heart
Building trust and long-term relationships with clients
Providing a smooth, transparent, and stress-free conveyancing experience

This recognition shows clients and partners that Lacey Solicitors is a firm that not only talks about client service but consistently demonstrates it in practice.

Our Modern Approach to Conveyancing

At Lacey Solicitors, we combine decades of legal expertise with innovative technology to make property transactions faster, clearer, and more efficient. Our client-focused approach ensures:

Real-time updates on the progress of your transaction in a way that suits you
Reduced delays through streamlined document management and AI
Clear cost structures from the outset with no hidden fees
A dedicated team providing personalised guidance every step of the way

Whether you’re a first-time buyer, a property investor, or a commercial client, our team ensures that your property transaction is handled with precision, transparency, and care.

What Sets Our Property Department Apart

Lexcel-accredited firm recognised for excellence in client care
Award-winning team – Silver winners at the NI Conveyancer Awards 2025
Finalists at the 2025 Irish Law Awards – Property Law Firm of the Year
Innovative legal technology for efficient property transactions
Transparent pricing and client-focused service
Extensive knowledge of the Northern Ireland property market

By combining experience, technology, and a fresh perspective, Lacey Solicitors delivers conveyancing services that exceed expectations.

Contact Our Award-Winning Property Team

If you’re looking for trusted property solicitors in Northern Ireland or conveyancing solicitors in Belfast, Lacey Solicitors is here to help. Speak to William Wilson and our expert team today.

Roundabout Accidents in Northern Ireland. Who is at Fault?

Posted on 6 October 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

Roundabouts keep traffic moving but they are also a common scene for collisions. Working out who is at fault in a roundabout accident can be complicated. Fault usually turns on who had right of way, who signalled correctly and whether any driver changed lanes or entered unsafely.

At Lacey Solicitors, we help innocent drivers, passengers, insurers, cyclists and pedestrians across Ireland and Northern Ireland resolve roundabout accident claims and assist in determining liabilty.

How Roundabouts Work

The Golden rule is always: traffic already on the roundabout has priority. Drivers entering must give way to vehicles approaching from the right. Both the Rules of the Road (Ireland) and Official Highway Code (Northern Ireland) require motorists to:

Give way to the right.
Use the correct lane for their intended exit.
Signal left when leaving.
Avoid sudden lane changes or cutting across traffic.

Common Causes of Roundabout Accidents in NI

Failing to yield to circulating traffic.
Entering or exiting from the wrong lane.
Changing lanes suddenly.
Not indicating correctly.
Tailgating or harsh braking.
Speeding or wet-weather skids.
Driver distraction.

Typical Fault Scenarios

1. Entering without giving way:
A driver who joins and collides with a vehicle already on the roundabout is normally at fault.

2. Lane discipline errors:
Drivers who cut across lanes or exit from the wrong lane may be fully or at least partially liable if an accident occurs.

3. Failure to signal:
Not indicating if it contributes to a collision can result in a driver being held to a degree liable for the accident.

4. Rear-end impacts:
Usually the rear driver will be found at fault.

5. Collisions with cyclists or motorcyclists:
These vulnerable road users should be afforded strong legal protection due to their increased risk of serious injury. It is vital that you take care and look for cyclists and motorcyclists.

Proving Fault in Roundabout Accidents

Detailed documentation can help establish fault, clarify the circumstances of the accident, and protect your legal rights. Useful evidence includes:

Dashcam or CCTV footage.
Witness statements.
Garda or PSNI reports.
Photographs of vehicle positions and damage.
Time-stamped messages or insurer correspondence.

Shared Responsibility

Whether it is Sandyknowes Roundabout Glengormley or Caw Roundabout in Derry, an inescapable truth is that in many roundabout accidents, fault is often shared between the drivers.

Liability is often be apportioned where both parties contributed to the collision, perhaps through poor observation, incorrect lane use, or failure to signal properly. This legal principle, known as contributory negligence, can reduce the amount of compensation awarded to reflect each driver’s degree of responsibility.

For example, where both drivers contributed equally to the accident, your compensation might be reduced by 50%.

Useful evidence like the evidence outlined above is critical to assisting your car accident solicitor in proving the other driver is at fault.

What to Do After a Roundabout Accident

Ensure everyone is safe.
Exchange driver and insurance details.
Take photos of the scene if it is safe to do so.
Report serious incidents to Gardaí or PSNI.
Seek legal advice before speaking to insurers.

How Lacey Solicitors Can Help

With offices in Dublin and Belfast, Lacey Solicitors represent clients in all types of road traffic accident claims, including complex liability disputes arising from roundabout collisions.

Our experienced team can:

Investigate fault and liability using expert accident reconstruction and evidence analysis.
Engage directly with insurers and third parties to progress your claim efficiently.
Pursue full compensation for your injuries, vehicle damage, loss of earnings, and related expenses.

We provide clear, practical legal advice and ensure that every client receives a personal, professional, and transparent service from start to finish.

Lacey Solicitors Belfast & Dublin : The Implications of Farley v Equiniti for Data Protection and Data Breach Claims

Posted on 2 October 202530 September 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

At Lacey Solicitors, with offices in Belfast and Dublin, our data protection solicitors represent clients affected by high-profile data breaches across the entire island of Ireland. The Court of Appeal ruling in Farley and Others v Paymaster (1836) Limited (trading as Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117 has solidified the approach to compensation for data protection breaches in the UK – a development highly relevant for both clients and organisations seeking guidance from expert data protection solicitors on the issue of a data breach.

The focus of the Court of Appeal was the confirmation that there is no minimum threshold of harm for claims under Article 82 of the UK GDPR or section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018).

A claimant can therefore seek compensation for a minor claim of distress or fear of misuse of personal data.

What Happened in Farley

The case arose after Equiniti, administrator of the Sussex Police pension scheme, accidentally sent over 750 annual benefit statements to outdated addresses. These statements contained sensitive information including names, dates of birth, National Insurance numbers, salaries, and pension entitlements.

Following the breach, a claim form was issued on behalf of 474 current and former officers, seeking damages for breach of statutory duty under the UK GDPR and the DPA and/or misuse of private information “arising from the [respondent’s] failure to keep the claimants’ personal data and private information secure by posting the same to incorrect postal addresses.”

The High Court Decision

At first instance, Mr Justice Nicklin struck out most claims, leaving only fourteen claimants whose letters had been physically opened. Only two could show that someone outside their family or workplace had actually read the documents.

The High Court applied a “de minimis” principle, dismissing claims that weren’t considered sufficiently serious. The court concluded that the mere risk of disclosure—without evidence that the information had been seen—was not enough to support compensation.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal overturned much of the High Court’s decision, clarifying several important principles relevant for individuals consulting data protection solicitors:

Proof of disclosure is not required: Data does not need to have been accessed by a third party for processing or an infringement to occur. The term “processing” covers all steps, including collating, printing, and sending letters.
Distress is not essential: Non-material damage can be claimed even without proving distress, though compensation does not cover every emotional reaction to a breach.
No threshold of seriousness: Claims under the GDPR do not require a minimum level of harm.
Fear of misuse must be well-founded: Where claims are based on fear that personal data could be misused by third parties, the fear must be objectively reasonable, based on what the claimant knew or should have known at the time.
Future harm is compensable: A claimant may have a well-founded fear of future misuse, even if no actual harm occurs.

These findings emphasise that data protection claims focus on the unlawful processing of personal data, rather than solely on whether actual harm or disclosure occurred.

The Irish Supreme Court in Dillon v Irish Life

In a previous article, our office highlighted the Irish Supreme Court Decision in Dillon v Irish Life Assurance. This Decision was referenced by the English Court of Appeal who acknowledge that victims of data breaches who seek compensation “solely for mental distress, upset and anxiety … cannot expect anything other than very, very modest awards”

But the English Court of Appeal went on to say that some of the claims in the case encompass psychiatric injury and the modest scale of the likely recovery cannot of itself be sufficient to justify dismissal of the claim.

The Judge referenced Lewison LJ Sullivan v Bristol Film Studios [2012] EWCA Civ 570, [2012] EMLR 27, [29]: “The mere fact that a claim is small should not automatically result in the court refusing to hear it at all. If I am entitled to recover a debt of £50 …. it would be an affront to justice if my claim were simply struck out.”

Data Protection Breach or Misuse of Private Information

At Lacey Solicitors, one of the key distinctions that we often have to make clear to our client’s is the difference between Data Breach Claims and Misuse of Private Information Claims. Both are, in our opinion erroneously, used interchangeably.

What Is a Misuse of Private Information Claim?

A misuse of private information claim is a common law tort that has evolved in light of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. It arises when private information is disclosed without consent, even if data protection laws are not breached. Key elements include:

Expectation of Privacy: The information must be private, and the individual must reasonably expect it to remain confidential.
Unauthorised Disclosure: The information must be shared without consent.
Harm or Distress: The disclosure must cause harm or distress.

How It Differs from a Data Protection Breach

Legal Basis: Data protection breaches are statutory claims under UK GDPR and DPA 2018; misuse of private information claims are common law.
Scope: Data protection claims cover lawful handling of personal data, including collection, storage, and sharing. Misuse of private information focuses on unauthorised disclosure.

What You Should Know About Data Protection Breaches in Northern Ireland & Ireland

For individuals, the decision is significant: even minor breaches can entitle them to compensation for distress or fear of misuse.

For organisations, the implications are clear: even small errors in handling personal data carry liability. Businesses should consult data protection solicitors to ensure robust data governance, clear processes, and effective breach communication.

At Lacey Solicitors, we advise clients on risk management, compliance, and breach response, and represent individuals affected by high-profile data breaches across the entire Island of Ireland.

Conclusion

Farley v Equiniti strengthens the rights of individuals affected by data breaches. By removing the de minimis threshold, the Court confirmed that fear of misuse and emotional distress are valid grounds for compensation, even without actual disclosure.

For organisations, the judgment highlights the importance of compliance and proactive breach management. For individuals, it demonstrates that personal data rights carry real legal protections.

At Lacey Solicitors, as experienced data protection solicitors, we continue to represent clients in high-profile data breach claims, helping them secure compensation and protections under the law. Cases such as Farley, Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50, Prismall v Google UK Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1516, and Rolfe v Veale Wasbrough Vizards Ltd [2021] EWHC 2809 (QB) form a strong foundation for our work in this area.

Consent in Medical Negligence in Northern Ireland. Lacey Solicitors Belfast Summarise the Key Case Law.

Posted on 25 September 202525 September 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

Consent is a central issue in medical negligence law. Patients are entitled to make informed decisions about medical treatment, and doctors have a legal duty to disclose risks and alternatives that are material to the patient’s decision. Failure to obtain proper consent may constitute negligence, even if the procedure itself is performed competently.

This article analyses the development of consent law through key UK and international cases.

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]

Bolam established the foundational test for medical negligence: a doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion. However, this principle is limited: professional opinion must be capable of withstanding logical analysis; otherwise, it cannot excuse negligence.

Bolam initially governed both the standard of care in treatment and the scope of disclosure to patients. For a more detailed discussion of the application of the Bolam and Bolitho tests in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, see our previous article Medical Negligence Claims: The Difference in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Canterbury v Spence [1972]

Although an American case, Canterbury v Spence is frequently cited in discussions of consent. The claimant was not informed of a 1% risk of paralysis from spinal surgery.

The court emphasised a “prudent patient” standard, focusing on what a reasonable patient would wish to know rather than what a doctor deemed necessary. This case introduced the principle that consent should prioritise patient autonomy.

The ruling represented a major shift from the traditional medical standard (known as the Bolam test in the UK) where a doctor’s duty of care was judged by other doctors. Instead, the court prioritized patient autonomy and the patient’s right to self-determination.

Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985]

In Sidaway, the House of Lords confirmed a doctor-centred approach to consent under UK law: disclosure of risks is largely a matter of professional judgment. If a responsible body of medical opinion would not have warned the patient of a particular risk, failure to disclose would not constitute negligence. Sidaway reinforced the dominance of Bolam in disclosure cases until later reforms.

Chester v Afshar [2004] – Causation and the Right to Choose

Chester marked a critical development in consent law, particularly regarding causation. The claimant underwent back surgery without being warned of a 1% risk of paralysis.

Ordinarily, negligence requires establishing a “but for” causal link: the injury would not have occurred but for the breach. The House of Lords recognised that strict application of the “but for” test could undermine the patient’s right to make an informed choice. Key points:

What matters is whether the patient was denied the opportunity to make an informed choice at the relevant time.
A claimant does not need to show they would never have had the procedure, only that they would have deferred it or sought further advice.

Lord Hope stated:

“The function of the law is to protect the patient’s right to choose. If it is to fulfil that function, it must ensure that the duty to inform is respected by the doctor.”

Chester established that failure to warn can constitute negligence in itself, modifying the traditional causation requirement in this narrow context.

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] – Modern Test for Consent

Montgomery is the leading authority on consent in England and Wales. The claimant, a small woman with diabetes, was not informed of a 9–10% risk of shoulder dystocia during vaginal delivery. The doctor did not disclose this risk, believing the patient would otherwise opt for a C-section, which he considered not in her best interests.

The Supreme Court clarified the law:

An adult of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, treatment to undergo. Consent must be obtained before any intervention affecting bodily integrity.
Doctors have a duty to take reasonable care to ensure the patient is aware of any material risks and reasonable alternatives.
The materiality test is whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would attach significance to the risk, or if the doctor knows or should reasonably know that the particular patient would attach significance.

Montgomery firmly shifted UK law to a patient-centred standard, prioritising autonomy over professional discretion.

Deuce v Worcester Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] – Limits of Chester

In Deuce, the claimant underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy and subsequently developed neuropathic post-surgical pain. She claimed the Trust failed to warn her of the risk of chronic post-surgical pain, material under Montgomery.

The trial judge found:

No negligence in disclosure.
Causation not established; the claimant would have undergone the surgery regardless.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed:

The Montgomery test had been correctly applied.
The modified causation rule in Chester does not remove the need to show a “but for” link — specifically, that the surgery would not have occurred at the relevant time.
Following Correa v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust, if relying on Chester’s exceptional principle, it must be pleaded and proved that the claimant would have deferred surgery had the risk been disclosed.

Deuce illustrates the limits of Chester: it does not create a general relaxation of causation, but applies only where the claimant can demonstrate that informed choice would have affected the timing of the procedure.

Bilal and Malik v St. George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – Determining Alternative Treatments

Bilal and Malik considered the correct approach to offering alternative forms of treatment: should this be assessed under the Bolam test (a question for the medical professional) or under Montgomery (a question for the patient)?

Under Bolam, a doctor would not be negligent if a reasonable body of medical opinion agreed that it was acceptable to withhold or recommend certain treatments.
Under Montgomery, materiality is judged from the patient’s perspective, focusing on whether a reasonable patient would attach significance to the risk or treatment choice.

Judge Davies clarified that these principles operate in tandem:

It is for the doctor to assess what reasonable alternatives exist for treatment — i.e., the medical assessment of options remains guided by professional judgment under Bolam.
It is for the court to determine the materiality of the risks associated with each proposed treatment. The test is whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would attach significance to the risk.

This distinction preserves the doctor’s expertise in evaluating treatment options while ensuring that disclosure of material risks and alternatives is judged according to patient-centred standards under Montgomery.

Summary and Conclusion

Bolam remains good law for ordinary clinical negligence cases. The standard of care is still assessed by reference to a responsible body of medical opinion capable of withstanding logical analysis.
Material risks and reasonable alternatives must be judged from the perspective of the prudent patient, not by reference to professional practice. This principle was established in Montgomery: disclosure is patient-centred, focusing on what a reasonable person in the patient’s position would consider significant.
Causation in consent cases generally follows the ordinary “but for” rules. However, the test is modified in limited circumstances where the claimant can demonstrate that, had they been properly informed, they would have taken time to consider their options before consenting. This was seen in Chester v Afshar and reaffirmed in Deuce.
Alternative treatments — whether they are reasonable and should be brought to the patient’s attention — remain a professional practice matter, assessed under the Bolam standard. This approach was clarified in Bilal and Malik. The doctor determines which treatment options are reasonable; the court assesses which risks are material for disclosure to the patient.

In essence, the law draws a careful distinction: medical judgment governs what treatments are reasonable, but patient autonomy governs what risks and alternatives must be disclosed. Practitioners must consider both elements when advising clients or evaluating potential claims.

Contact Lacey Solicitors Belfast & Dublin – Medical Negligence Solicitors

At Lacey Solicitors, our approach to medical negligence claims is straightforward and client-focused. We begin by listening carefully to your story and explaining your legal options in plain English. From there, we gather the necessary medical evidence and reports to support your case, and we fight diligently for fair compensation and justice. If you or a loved one has suffered due to medical negligence in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, we are here to help.

Trust our experience and let us help you move forward. Use our Online Portal and a solicitor will contact you within 24 hours for a few no-obligation chat.

Case Study – £35,000 Settlement for Belfast Passenger in Tinnitus and Hearing Loss Claim from Lacey Solicitors

Posted on 23 September 202524 September 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

Client: Jack P.

Settlement: £35,000.00

Location: Belfast, NI

Case Type: Personal Injury – Road Traffic Accident

Jack’s Car Accident and Tinnitus Claim as a Passenger

Jack instructed Lacey Solicitors following his involvement in a non-fault road traffic collision.

Jack was a passenger in a car when the driver of the car he was in caused a collision.

Jack sustained soft tissue injuries to his back as well as some mild hearing loss to his left ear and tinnitus. Lacey Solicitors pursued the at fault insurance company on behalf of Jack in respect of compensation for his injuries.

Why Jack Contacted Lacey Solicitors for his Tinnitus and Hearing Loss Claim

Jack was referred to Lacey Solicitors by an an Insurance Company Claims handler. Jack wanted a firm that would understand the difficulties this accident has caused him and one that was experienced in tinnitus claims. After Jack googled the firm and read some of their previous articles on hearing loss and tinnitus claims and spoke with a solicitor, he was put at ease for the accident.

The Legal Process and Negotiations

Lacey Solicitors immediate arranged for Jack to be examined by a Consultant ENT to comment on the hearing loss and ringing in the ear.

Lacey Solicitors obtained the report and sent it to the third-party insurance company, an initial offer was received in the sum of £7,000.00.

The insurance company stated;

“We cannot see how these tinnitus symptoms have arisen given your client has not banged their head nor has he suffered any direct head trauma.”

Lacey Solicitors wrote to Jack the next day to advise that the case is worth over £30,000.00.

Jack was eager to complete the matter and so asked if Lacey Solicitors could obtain £25,000.00. We wrote appropriately to the insurance company and advised that our instructions were to seek £25,000.00. Lacey Solicitors advised that if the case progressed the case would ultimately be worth more.

The insurance company increased to £10,000.00.

Orla McAteer, Solicitor, rejected this proposal and issued formal legal proceedings in the High Court of Northern Ireland suing the at fault driver and their insurance company seeking compensation for Jack’s injuries.

Further settlement discussions took place and ultimately a settlement was reached in the sum of £35,000.00, with the at fault insurance company agreeing to pay Jack’s legal costs.

Outcome

Jack received a settlement of £35,000 in full and final settlement of his claim and the insurance company agreed to pay all of the Legal Costs incurred.

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors for Your Passenger and Tinnitus Claim

Lacey Solicitors have extensive experience in personal injury claims involving tinnitus and hearing loss symptoms. Our team provides clear advice, robust representation, and a client-focused approach to ensure your rights are properly advised, and receive fair compensation.

Contact Lacey Solicitors Tinnitus Specialists Today

If you have sustained personal injuries as a result of a road traffic collision, don’t delay in seeking legal advice. We offer clear, confidential guidance and will support you in pursuing the compensation you are entitled to. Contact our Belfast office today or get in touch through our secure online enquiry form — your consultation is entirely confidential and comes with no obligation.

Contributory Negligence in Ireland: How It Affects Personal Injury Claims

Posted on 22 September 202521 September 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

Contributory negligence is a fundamental principle in Irish tort law. Those at the coal face of insurance defence litigation in Ireland will know that it is frequently relied upon in defending personal injury claims.

Contributory negligence is alleged when a claimant is believed to have contributed to their own injury or loss by acting negligently. For insurers and risk managers, understanding this concept is critical to managing liability and ensuring that compensation awards are fair and proportionate.

At Lacey Solicitors, our insurance defence team in Dublin and Belfast provides expert guidance on contributory negligence, helping insurers assess claims, minimise risk, and defend litigation effectively in dealing with claims where the claimant is the ‘author of their own misfortune.‘

What is Contributory Negligence?

Contributory negligence applies where a claimant’s own actions – or occasionally failures to act – contributed to the harm they suffered. In personal injury claims, this principle can reduce the amount of damages awarded.

For example:

A driver injured in a road traffic accident while not wearing a seatbelt may see their compensation reduced proportionally.
A cyclist failing to stop at a red light who collides with a car may share liability for the accident.
An employee injured at work for failing to use provided safety equipment or follow protocols may bear some responsibility.
A shopper who slips over a spillage that was clearly marked and cordoned off may have their claim reduced.

Contributory negligence is a principle of fairness and proportionality that apportions liability, reflecting the actions of all parties involved.

Legal Basis for Contributory Negligence in Ireland

In Ireland, contributory negligence is provided for under Section 34 of the Civil Liability Act 1961. It is a partial defence, meaning that even if a claimant is partly at fault, they may still recover damages – but these are reduced according to their share of responsibility.

The court applies a two-step approach:

Determine whether the defendant was negligent.
If negligence is established, assess whether the claimant contributed to their own harm and by what percentage.

Put simply, if a claimant is 25% responsible for their injuries, they will recover 75% of the damages awarded. This proportional approach is central to defending claims and ensuring equitable outcomes.

Contributory Negligence from Multiple Parties

In complex cases, liability may be shared among multiple parties. For example, a hearing loss claim could involve several employers each breaching safety regulations. In such scenarios, the court allocates responsibility on a percentage basis, with each party accountable for their share of the damages and contributing the appropriate percentage of any final award.

Accurately assessing multi-party liability is crucial for insurers and defence teams to minimise exposure and ensure that settlements are fair and justified.

Contributory Negligence in Irish Case Law

Several Irish cases have shaped how contributory negligence is applied. Our office has previously blogged on Fanning v Myerscough & Anor.

O’Connell v. Jackson: Confirmed that a claimant’s negligence reduces, but does not bar, recovery of damages.
McGrath v. Trintech Group Plc: Reinforced that contributory negligence is proportional, even when the defendant’s negligence is more serious.

These precedents highlight that contributory negligence is fact-specific and requires careful analysis of all parties’ conduct.

Comparison to Contributory Negligence in Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland, contributory negligence is governed by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. Similar to Irish law, it allows the court to apportion liability between the parties involved.

Before either NI or ROI act was passed, the common law doctrine of contributory negligence was a complete bar to recovery. This meant that if a claimant was found to be even slightly at fault for their own injury, they could not recover any damages at all.

The core reform introduced by both the 1945 and 1961 Acts was the move away from this all-or-nothing approach towards a system of comparative negligence, where courts apportion damages based on each party’s degree of fault.

Author of Their Own Misfortune

For insurers, contributory negligence and the allegation that the Claimant was the author of their own misfortune is key tool to:

Evaluate claims accurately
Reduce exposure in personal injury settlements
Defend litigation effectively by highlighting the claimant’s role in the incident
Ensure fair settlements that reflect actual responsibility

Common examples seen day to day by insurance professionals include:

Failure to wear a seatbelt in road traffic accidents
Inadequate stopping distances or inappropriate speed in multi-vehicle collisions
Non-compliance with workplace safety procedures
Ignoring obvious hazards in public liability claims

Criticisms of Contributory Negligence

While widely recognised, contributory negligence is not without criticisms:

Minor claimant negligence may disproportionately reduce compensation. For example take a pedestrian hit by a speeding car, who is deemed to be 10% at fault for not using a pedestrian crossing. Their award has been reduced by 10%, notwithstanding the defendant’s primary responsibility.
Determining the degree of fault is entirely subjective, which can and does lead to inconsistent awards. Even the degree of a percentage blame can vary widely depending on judicial interpretation. This makes negotiations difficult and can increase litigation costs where parties may avoid ‘coming to the table’ until they know the identity of the trial judge.

Nonetheless, when applied correctly, it remains a fair and effective tool for insurers defending claims.

How Lacey Solicitors Supports Insurance Clients in Ireland

At Lacey Solicitors, our Dublin and Belfast insurance defence team provides comprehensive support at the intial advice stage. On consideration of the insurers file of papers, we will;

Assess contributory negligence and multi-party liability
Advise insurers on potential liability reductions
Developing tailored defence strategies such as Tenders or Lodgments to reflect any contributory negligence
Represent insurers in negotiations and litigation

Our experience and reputation ensures that insurers can defend claims effectively while managing risk and controlling costs.

Contact Us to Discuss a Case Involving Contributory Negligence

For expert advice on contributory negligence or defending personal injury claims in Ireland, contact Lacey Solicitors’ Insurance Lawyers using our secure online portal.

Advice from Lacey Solicitors and School Run Safety Tips for Parents Across Northern Ireland

Posted on 11 September 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

As September begins, children across Belfast, Newry, Bangor, Lisburn and Derry Londonderry are settling back into the school routine. For some families, it’s the first school run of P1. For others, it’s simply the return to early mornings, traffic queues and packed bags.

The school run is often busy and stressful – and when people are in a hurry, safety can easily be overlooked. Sadly, accidents involving children happen every year in towns and cities across Northern Ireland.

At Lacey Solicitors, we not only support families after accidents but also encourage safer journeys for everyone. Below, we set out key tips for children walking, travelling by bus, or being driven to school – and explain your legal options if something goes wrong.

School Safety When Walking

Many children in Belfast, Armagh and Ballymena walk part or all of their school journey. If your child walks, remind them to:

Always stop, look both ways and listen before crossing.
Walk on pavements where possible. If none are available, face oncoming traffic and keep to the side.
Use zebra crossings, pelican crossings and lollipop patrols where available.
Avoid distractions like mobile phones or headphones while near traffic.
Never cross from behind parked vehicles or run into the road suddenly.

Developing these habits early helps children stay safe as they grow more independent.

School Safety on the Bus

For children who take the bus in Omagh, Enniskillen or Coleraine, basic awareness is vital. Teach them to:

Wait well back from the kerb as the bus approaches.
Only step onto the bus once it has completely stopped.
Stay seated while the bus is moving.
Look carefully in both directions before crossing after getting off.
Never walk behind the bus, where drivers cannot see them.

Driving Children to School

For parents in Lisburn, Bangor and Derry-Londonderry who drive their children to school, there are simple ways to reduce risks:

Make sure car seats are age- and size-appropriate, and securely fitted.
Leave home earlier to avoid the temptation to rush or park carelessly.
Park away from zigzag lines, corners or blocked driveways, even if it means walking further.
Obey school crossing patrols immediately – they are there to protect children.
Keep focused on the road at all times – avoid mobile phones and turn down distractions.

Slow Down in School Zones

Across Northern Ireland, traffic builds quickly at drop-off and collection times. Reducing speed to 20mph or less near schools gives drivers extra time to react if a child runs into the road. Even a few miles per hour slower can make the difference between a near miss and a serious injury.

When Accidents Happen

Despite every precaution, accidents involving children on the school run are still common. At Lacey Solicitors, we regularly advise families dealing with:

Pedestrian accidents outside schools
Child passenger injuries in car crashes
Cycling accidents on the way to school
Falls in school car parks or near bus stops

If your child has been injured on the journey to or from school in Belfast, Newry, Lisburn, Derry-Londonderry, Bangor, Ballymena, Armagh or elsewhere in Northern Ireland, and it was not their fault, you may be able to claim compensation.

Common Accidents at School

While all schools do their best to follow strict health and safety policies, accidents can still occur during the school day. Some of the most frequent incidents we see include:

Playground equipment accidents – children may fall or collide while playing.
Slips, trips, and falls on school premises – wet floors, uneven surfaces or cluttered hallways can cause injuries.
Science experiment injuries – mishandling equipment or chemicals can result in burns or cuts.
Accidents on school trips – trips and outings can carry unexpected hazards.
Fingers or hands caught in doors – heavy doors or lockers can trap children’s fingers.
Sports injuries – sprains, strains, or impacts during PE classes and extracurricular activities.

Even with excellent supervision, these accidents can have lasting effects. If your child is injured at school due to negligence or unsafe conditions, you may be entitled to compensation through a personal injury claim.

Why Families Across Northern Ireland Trust Lacey Solicitors

Clients across Belfast, Dublin, choose us for our award-nominated expertise, decades of experience, and client-focused service.

Recognised Leaders: Finalists at the 2025 LEAP Irish Law Awards, including Personal Injury Lawyer of the Year.
Expert Advice: Specialising in personal injury, insurance, and civil litigation with cross-border support.
Excellence & Innovation in Client Services
Our LEXCEL-accredited approach combines technology, responsiveness, and exceptional care—whether we’re handling a strightforward car accident or a devastating catastrophic injury claim.
APIL Members: Proud members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, ensuring the highest standards of practice.

Talk to Us Today

At Lacey Solicitors, we are committed to protecting children and supporting families across Northern Ireland.

If your child has suffered an injury while walking, travelling by bus or being driven to school, and the accident wasn’t their fault, contact our team today using our online portal. Our specialist solicitors are here to help you every step of the way.

Accident at Work in Belfast – How to Claim Compensation with No Upfront Costs

Posted on 11 September 20259 September 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

Workplace accidents can happen in any sector, from construction sites to offices. If you have been injured in Belfast, Bangor, Ballymena or anywhere in Northern Ireland because of unsafe working conditions or employer negligence, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, lost income, and expenses.

Many people worry about legal costs when thinking about making a claim. The good news is that you can usually pursue a claim in Northern Ireland without paying any money upfront.

Why “No Win, No Fee” Doesn’t Apply in Northern Ireland

In England and Wales, personal injury solicitors often offer “No Win, No Fee” agreements. However, these arrangements are not permitted under Northern Ireland law.

Instead, solicitors in Belfast can still provide risk-free legal representation through other funding options that mean you do not face out-of-pocket costs.

Risk-Free Ways to Fund Your Claim

1. Unsuccessful opponent-Pays Legal Costs

If you are sucessful in your claim, your employer’s insurance company will pay your legal costs as part of the settlement. This ensures that you receive your full compensation without deductions.

2. Legal Expenses Insurance

Some solicitors offer Legal Expenses Insurance that protects you if you do not succeed and gives you peice of mind. If your case does not succeed, by paying a small insurance premium, you are covered in the event that your opponent is successful and the LE Insurance covers your opponent’s costs. This keeps you fully protected.

3. Legal Aid

In certain cases, you may qualify for Legal Aid. Your solicitor can advise whether you meet the criteria and help with the application.

What Types of Work Accidents Can Be Claimed?

You may be able to claim compensation for a wide range of injuries at work in Belfast, including:

Falls from ladders, scaffolding or heights
Slips, trips and falls in unsafe workplaces
Accidents involving machinery or vehicles
Back and manual handling injuries
Industrial illness or occupational disease
Injuries from defective equipment

If your injury was caused by negligence or unsafe working practices, you should seek legal advice immediately.

How to Start a Claim in Belfast

The claims process is straightforward:

Seek medical attention for your injuries.
Report the accident to your employer and ensure it is recorded.
Gather evidence – photographs, witness details, accident book entry.
Speak to a Belfast solicitor specialising in work accident claims.
Begin your claim – your solicitor will handle negotiations with the insurance company.

Most cases are settled without the need to go to court.

How Long Do I Have to Claim?

As outlined in our previous articles for time limits involved in Personal Injury Claims, In Northern Ireland, you normally have 3 years from the date of the accident (or the date you became aware of your injury) to start a claim. After this, you may lose the right to compensation.

Why Choose a Local Belfast Solicitor?

Choosing a solicitor based in Belfast gives you:

Local knowledge of Northern Ireland law and courts as well as judicial decisions
Personal service and communication that suits you from WhatsApp to face-to-face meetings
Experience in handling accident at work claims across a wide range of industries for both Plaintiffs and Defendants.

A local solicitor understands both the legal process and the practical realities of claiming in Northern Ireland.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I pay anything upfront?
No – your solicitor will explain how costs are covered so you are not out of pocket.
What if my claim is unsuccessful?
Insurance or Legal Aid can protect you against paying the other side’s costs.
Will I lose my job if I make a claim?
It is unlawful for an employer to dismiss you for exercising your legal right to claim compensation.

Take the First Step Today

If you have suffered an accident at work in Belfast, you could be entitled to significant compensation. With no upfront costs and a free initial consultation, there is nothing to lose by seeking advice.

Contact our Belfast workplace injury team today using our Online Portal to discuss your case in confidence.

Cabot Financial Ireland Data Breach – Know Your Rights and How to Claim Compensation

Posted on 1 August 202512 August 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

Lacey Solicitors are now initiating legal proceedings against Cabot Financial Ireland Limited on behalf of affected individuals. If your personal or financial data was compromised in the recent cyberattack, you may be entitled to claim compensation for both financial losses and emotional distress.

What Happened?

In September 2024, Cabot Financial Ireland Limited, a prominent debt collection and credit servicing firm regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland, suffered a significant cyberattack. The breach involved the theft of approximately 394,000 sensitive data files. These files contained personal, financial, and in some cases, even health-related or marital status information.

The compromised data affects:

Cabot’s direct customers
Customers of financial institutions for whom Cabot acts as credit servicer
Current and former Cabot employees

The exposed information includes:

Names, addresses, and contact information
Loan book and debt details
Potentially sensitive information shared by customers (e.g. health issues or family circumstances)

Cabot’s website and phone systems were temporarily disabled following the attack, and forensic IT specialists were brought in to assess the extent of the damage.

Cabot Financial Ireland Limited’s Response and Public Concern

Cabot states it has:

Notified the Data Protection Commission (DPC), Central Bank of Ireland, and Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau
Obtained a protective court order to reduce the likelihood of stolen data being misused online
Begun contacting impacted individuals

However, many former customers and staff have criticised the speed, clarity, and scope of these communications. Some did not receive timely notification despite their data being involved.

Your Rights as a Victim of a Data Breach

Under GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and the Data Protection Act 2018, individuals have a legal right to claim compensation when their personal data is exposed due to a company’s failure to protect it.

You may be eligible to claim for:

Material Damages

Fraudulent transactions
Identity theft
Out-of-pocket costs for credit monitoring or account security
Lost income
Banking and administrative fees

Non-Material Damages

Anxiety, distress, and emotional upset
Fear of future misuse of your personal data
Loss of sleep or mental wellbeing
Reputational damage or embarrassment

Recent developments in Irish data protection law outlined previously by our office namely the Supreme Court decision in Dillon v Irish Life Assurance PLC [2025] IESC 37 has removed the requirement to obtain IRB authorisation for such claims, as they do not constitute personal injuries. This has significantly reduced the procedural burden for claimants, allowing claims to proceed directly in the District Court (for amounts up to €15,000.00), making the process quicker and more accessible.

In the context of the Cabot breach, where nearly 400,000 files containing personal and financial data were compromised, these legal standards are highly relevant. Many affected individuals are likely to have experienced emotional consequences, such as fear, distress, or anxiety, especially if the compromised data included sensitive information like marital or health status. Based on recent court awards in similar cases—ranging from €2,000.00 to €7,500.00 for non-material harm—Cabot may face a significant volume of claims.

Lacey Solicitors is now writing to Cabot Financial Ireland Limited, representing victims seeking compensation for the violation of their data rights.

Lacey Solicitors – Data Breach Litigation Solicitors

At Lacey Solicitors, we are now intimating formal legal proceedings against Cabot Financial Ireland Limited. We are representing individuals affected by the breach and seeking compensation for both material and non-material damages.

We understand how unsettling it is to learn your private information may be in the hands of criminals. Ruaidhrí Austin, Partner is experienced in both Defence and Plaintiff GDPR litigation, and is committed to helping you secure the compensation you deserve.

We can assist with:

Submitting a Subject Access Request (SAR) to confirm if your data was affected
Gathering evidence of emotional distress or financial harm
Managing the full legal process with clear and transparent legal fees.

What Should You Do Now?

If you suspect or know that your data was part of the Cabot data breach, you should:

Contact Lacey Solicitors for a confidential case review
Request confirmation from Cabot via a Subject Access Request (we can assist with this)
Monitor your financial accounts for suspicious activity
Report any suspected fraud to the Gardaí
Follow cybersecurity best practices — e.g. change passwords, enable 2FA, and avoid phishing scams

How to Spot Suspicious Activity

Criminals may now impersonate Cabot or use your stolen information to conduct scams. Be wary of:

Unsolicited emails or phone calls asking for bank details
Messages claiming your Cabot account is in arrears or frozen
Unfamiliar credit card or loan applications appearing on your credit report
Social engineering attempts using your personal details

Cabot has published advice on how to protect yourself, and we encourage all victims to also consult trusted sources like:

Contact Lacey Solicitors, Data Breach Solicitors, Belfast & Dublin

If you believe your personal information was exposed in the Cabot data breach, contact Lacey Solicitors today. With offices in Dublin and Belfast, our experienced team specialises in data protection and privacy claims, and we are currently acting on behalf of individuals affected by this breach. We offer clear, confidential advice on your rights under GDPR and can help you pursue compensation for the harm caused.

Call us on +353 1 513 4375 (Dublin) or +44 28 9089 6540 (Belfast), or contact Lacey Solicitors today for a free consultation using our Online Portal.

Data Protection Litigation in Ireland : Irish Supreme Court Clarifies Emotional Distress Is Not a Personal Injury Under PIAB Legislation

Posted on 28 July 202525 July 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

In a decision that brings long-awaited clarity to to those dealing with Data Protection litigation in Ireland, the Supreme Court has ruled that emotional harm — including distress, anxiety, upset, and inconvenience — does not amount to a personal injury under the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (the PIAB Act) unless it constitutes a recognised psychiatric disorder.

The ruling in Dillon v Irish Life Assurance plc [2025] IESC 37 redefines the threshold between personal injury and non-injury claims and has significant procedural implications for data breach litigation, negligence claims, and cases seeking compensation for emotional harm. The judgment confirms that not all emotional damage attracts the legal protections afforded to personal injuries, and that IRB authorisation is not required for certain classes of claims.

Background to the Case: A Data Breach and a Procedural Dispute

Mr Patrick Dillon initially brought an action in the Circuit Court against Irish Life Assurance plc, claiming compensation for emotional harm after his private policy documentation was repeatedly sent to a third party in error — six times over a twelve-year period.

He alleged distress, anxiety, upset, and inconvenience arising from these data breaches, but did not claim to have suffered any physical or psychiatric injury, nor did he apply to PIAB for authorisation before issuing proceedings — a step usually required in personal injury cases under section 12 of the PIAB Act. The case was brought by Equity Civil Bill, rather than the Personal Injuries Summons format used in injury litigation.

The Circuit Court dismissed the claim as frivolous or bound to fail on the basis that it constituted an unauthorised personal injury action. The High Court upheld that dismissal. However, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognising that the issues raised were matters of public interest to those dealing with Data Protection litigation in Ireland.

To be – or not to be – a Personal Injury?

Delivering the unanimous decision, Murray J provided a detailed examination of both statutory and common law interpretations of “personal injury” in Irish law.

Emotional Distress Without Psychiatric Injury Is Not a Personal Injury

The Court held that claims for emotional distress alone — such as worry, stress, upset, or anxiety — do not constitute personal injuries within the meaning of the 2003 Act unless they are supported by evidence of a recognised psychiatric disorder.

This position is consistent with long-standing case law, including:

Kelly v Hennessy [1995] 3 IR 253, where the Supreme Court required evidence of psychiatric illness to ground a claim in negligence;
Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 1 IR 465, which reaffirmed that “grief or sorrow” without accompanying injury is not actionable; and
Murray v Budds [2017] IESC 4, in which the Court confirmed there is no stand-alone right to damages for emotional upset alone.

Murray J rejected the lower courts’ finding that the distress Mr Dillon described fell within PIAB’s jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the 2003 Act was never intended to apply to non-clinical emotional harms, and requiring PIAB authorisation in such cases would misapply the legislation.

Two Distinct Legal Pathways for Privacy-Related Emotional Harm and Data Protection Litigation in Ireland

The judgment clarified that claimants alleging emotional harm from data breaches or privacy violations must now choose between two distinct procedural avenues, depending on the nature of their injury:

Psychiatric Injury Track:
Where a data breach results in a medically recognised psychiatric condition — such as depression, PTSD or anxiety disorder — the case is treated as a personal injury action and requires IRB authorisation.
Emotional Distress Track:
Where the plaintiff claims non-clinical distress, such as inconvenience, worry, or temporary anxiety, the claim does not fall under the IRB regime. These actions may be pursued directly in court without prior authorisation.

The judgment acknowledged the trade-off between the two tracks. The IRB system is more cost-effective and efficient but offers less flexibility than litigation before the courts. We previously published an article on How Irish Courts Are Handling Data Breach and GDPR Claims. Time will tell which route now becomes more common, particularly in data protection and consumer claims.

The Limits of Negligence for Emotional Distress

The Court also clarified that where emotional harm falls short of psychiatric injury, negligence is not a viable cause of action. This is because emotional upset alone does not meet the “damage” element required to sustain a tort claim in negligence.

As Murray J noted, Irish law has long distinguished between recognised injury and non-actionable emotional disturbance. While emotional distress may sometimes be compensable in contract or under statute (such as the Data Protection Act 2018), it does not transform into a personal injury for other legal purposes.

The Role of GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 for Data Protection Litigation in Ireland

Mr Dillon had also brought his claim under section 117 of the Data Protection Act 2018, mirroring Article 82(1) of the GDPR, which allows for compensation for both material and non-material damage.

While this legislative framework supports recovery for distress caused by data breaches, the Court confirmed that such claims do not become personal injury claims unless psychiatric injury is present. This distinction preserves access to redress under data protection law without triggering the procedural requirements of IRB.

A Warning on Pleading and Procedure

One of the most important procedural lessons from the case was the emphasis placed by the Court on accurate pleading. Murray J stated repeatedly that it is the responsibility of the plaintiff — not the courts or defendants — to clearly state:

The type of harm for which compensation is sought, and
The legal basis of the claim (tort, statute, contract, etc.).

Mislabelled claims, or those that blur the boundaries between personal injury and non-injury proceedings, may be vulnerable to procedural objections — or worse, outright dismissal.

Solicitors are now on clear notice that claims involving emotional distress should only proceed through IRB where there is evidence of psychiatric diagnosis. Otherwise, they must be pleaded accordingly and initiated through the ordinary civil courts.

What Can Insurers and Data Controllers Learn

This Supreme Court decision provides much-needed clarity for claimants, insurers, and legal practitioners:

Emotional upset claims without psychiatric evidence can now proceed outside the IRB regime.
IRB authorisation is only required for personal injuries supported by medical or psychiatric diagnosis.
Negligence claims for emotional harm alone are likely to fail, as they lack the injury element.
GDPR/data breach litigation can proceed in court for non-material harm, but awards are likely to be modest without clinical injury.
Solicitors must ensure claims are accurately pleaded and the correct procedural route is followed.

Final Thoughts from Lacey Solicitors

The judgment in Dillon v Irish Life marks a another turning point in Irish litigation. It draws a firm procedural and legal boundary between actionable personal injury and general emotional harm — offering clarity where confusion had prevailed.

At Lacey Solicitors, we act for both claimants and insurers in personal injury, insurance disputes, and data protection litigation across Dublin, Belfast and beyond. Whether you’re seeking to initiate proceedings or responding to a claim involving a data breach, our experienced litigation team can advise on the correct legal framework and best course of action. Use our Online Portal to speak with a member of our team.