Enquire Today

Category: Insurance Law

Life is full of dangers and judicial prose…

Posted on by Damian McGeady (Partner)

A Sideways Glance to the Court of Appeal decision in

 

Kandaurova

V

 Circle K Energy Group Ltd

 

Brilliant.

The opening to Noonan J’s Court of Appeal judgment this week in the case of Kandaurova v Cirkle K Energy Group Ltd. was brilliantly effective, reminiscent of the vivid staccato style often associated with Lord Denning in his pomp. To Denning, the writing of judgments was an art form.  And the beginning mattered:

I try to make my judgments live … I start my judgment, as it were, with a prologue – as the chorus does in one of Shakespeare’s plays – to introduce the story.

Professor James Raymond, former Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Alabama, maintained that the first page of a judgment is “prime real estate.” In a well-constructed judgment, “the front page says it all.”

 

Danger here

In Kandaurova, Noonan J opened as follows;

Life is full of dangers which may cause injury if not avoided.  Small children develop by encountering and learning to avoid things that can be fallen off, bumped into, tripped over or knocked down.  In the common law of occupiers’ liability, ordinary everyday dangers are described as “usual” and as such, do not attract liability

The reader is given a simple and direct introduction to the case. The direction of the wind is clear. People can be injured due to danger, but where it is a usual or common danger, there may not be a liability. In this case, a lady tripped on a kerb. It was not defective. The Court of Appeal held that she could not recover damages from the Occupier.

 

The Bluebell opening

There are other fine examples of opening paragraphs in Personal Injury cases. Denning’s ‘Bluebell opening’ is perhaps the most celebrated;

It happened on the 19th April, 1964. It was bluebell time in Kent, Mr. and Mrs. Hinz had been married some 10 years, and they had four children, all aged 9 and under. The youngest was one. Mrs. Minz was a remarkable woman. In addition to her own four, she was foster-mother to four other children. To add to it, she was two months pregnant with her fifth child.

On this day they drove out in a Bedford Dormobile van from Tonbridge to Canvey Island. They took all eight children with them. As they were coming back they turned into a lay by at Thurnham to have a picnic tea. The husband, Mr. Hinz, was at the back of the Dormobile making the tea. Mrs. Hinz had taken Stephanie, her third child, aged 3, across the road to pick bluebells on the opposite side. There came along a Jaguar car driven by Mr. Berry, out of control. A tyre had burst. The Jaguar rushed into this layby and crashed into Mr. Hinz and the children. Mr. Hinz was frightfully injured and died a little later. Nearly all the children were hurt. Blood was streaming from their heads. Mrs. Hinz, hearing the crash, turned round and saw this disaster. She ran across the road and did all she could. Her husband was beyond recall. But the children recovered.

 

Home Run

This blog has previously written of the Irish case of Kane v Kennedy and Budd J’s tremendously evocative :

The news of the death of Joe DiMaggio came while I was writing this judgment. His record streak in 1941, when he got a hit in fifty-six consecutive games, still stands. His grace at the plate and his defensive qualities at centre field, his leadership of the New York Yankees to victory in nine of the ten World Series in which he led them, and above all his gentlemanly conduct made him a legend in his own lifetime. I wonder what he would have made of the problems with which I have been confronted in resolving the conflicts of evidence presented by what followed the strike by Alice Dunne during the game of rounders played in the sports hall of a convent school in Glasnevin on the morning of Tuesday 21st May 1996.

 

Life and Death

One of the first Constitutional cases this reader encountered was the X Case (1992). This form Denham J:

This application for an injunction raises issues of the utmost seriousness affecting a girl of 14 years of age and her family. It concerns matters of life and death, and touches on the deepest aspects of human experience and the moral and legal norms of our Justice.

 

Short and Sweet

Lord Hoffmann’s opening to his judgment in the case Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society could not have been in plainer language;

My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I agree with it, and for the reasons which he has given, I would allow the appeal.

 

Signal of Intent

Lord Wilberforce in Anns v Merton London Borough Council got straight to the point with:

In my opinion the time has come when we should say that the law ought to recognise our responsibility going beyond the present cases, a duty to behave conscientiously, responsibly and with humanity.

 

Lunar Law

For the property lawyers out there, what about I leave you with this from our Supreme Court and Higgins CJ in Vone Securities Ltd v. Cooke:

As stated by Mr. Justice Costello in his Judgment, at common law the ordinary primary meaning of month, when used in instruments such as leases, was and is lunar month. This meaning is taken to be intended by the parties to any such instrument unless that instrument read as a whole, or the surrounding contemporaneous circumstances, show that the other, or secondary meaning, of calendar month, was, in fact, intended. It will, no doubt, surprise many people to learn that a rule as archaic as this surely is and so far removed from the needs and uses of modern society should still be part of our law. Even in the days of Charles Dickens, the rule was probably sufficiently out of date to justify Mr. Bumble’s description of the law. Today, its continued existence as a rule of the common law is opposed to all common sense and indicates how much remains to be done by way of reform to bring the common law up to date.

You learn something new every day! Or should that be every 1/29th of a lunar month (Approx. Maths is not my thing)

Case Study – Excessive Credit Hire Rates halved in Ireland with Basic Hire Rate Reports.

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

Recent Success in Challenging Excessive Credit Hire Rates in Ireland

 

Last month, our firm reported recent success with a  successful outcome at Letterkenny Courthouse, where the Court agreed with our arguments that the rate charged by a Credit Hire Organisation was excessive. We’re pleased to share another win for our Irish insurers in contesting inflated credit hire charges.

 

Case Summary

 

The Claimant was involved in a road traffic accident with the Defendant, and liability was accepted by the Defendant’s insurer. After the accident, the Claimant entered into a credit hire agreement with an Accident Management Company (AMC), which provided a replacement vehicle on a credit hire basis. The Claimant’s original vehicle was written off, and payment was made by our instructing insurers for the pre-accident value (PAV) of the vehicle.

Once the PAV had been settled, the credit hire period ended, and the Claimant’s representatives submitted an invoice to our instructing insurer for payment. The total amount claimed for the hire of the replacement vehicle over 76 days was £26,343.46 (STG). The Credit Hire Organisation later offered to accept £20,000 (STG) to settle the matter, and avoid Circuit Court costs in Dublin.

 

Initial Assessment by Lacey Solicitors 

 

Our instructing insurers sought a preliminary opinion from Ruaidhrí Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors, given his dual qualifications and extensive experience in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in handling credit hire claims. They specifically asked whether the reduced figure of £20,000 should be accepted and had two primary concerns:

  1. Mitigation of Losses: Could it be argued that the Claimant failed to mitigate their losses by not using their comprehensive insurance policy? Under  34(2)(b) of the Civil Liability Act 1961. Claimants in Ireland have a statutory duty to mitigate their losses. While this argument is common in credit hire cases, we advised that at this early stage of the proceedings, it would be best to focus on other arguments.
  2. Reasonableness of the Hire Rate: Was the daily rate charged for a replacement Range Rover reasonable? Given the specifics of the case, the hire period was appropriate, and the replacement vehicle was ‘like for like’. However, the insurer rightly questioned the reasonableness of the hire rate which seemed excessive.

 

Challenging the Credit Hire Rate

 

We outlined that the burden of proof lies in these cases lies with the Defendant to demonstrate that there was a more reasonable rate available.   Prima facie, the Plaintiff is entitled to the rate claimed.  It is for the Defendant to demonstrate a suitable alternative rate.  To support this, our office commissioned a Basic Hire Rate (BHR) report from ‘BHR Assist’ to challenge the excessive charges.

The BHR report revealed that a comparable replacement vehicle could have been hired from a car hire company located just 10 miles from the Claimant’s home for a total of £10,876.55, a significant difference from the £26,343.46 claimed.

 

Settlement and Conclusion

 

We advised that our instructing insurers should offer £12,500.00 (STG) in settlement, which included the £10,876.55 for hire, plus additional costs for storage and recovery. The insurers successfully negotiated a settlement at this amount, avoiding formal court proceedings and saving substantial legal costs in the process.

 

Key Takeaways

 

  • While credit hire claims are relatively rare in the Republic of Ireland, they are becoming more frequent.
  • Claims handlers should aim to quickly recognise cases where Credit Hire is ongoing and take steps to ensure that repairs are authorised or payments raised in a timely fashion to avoid any significant delays.
  • When the daily hire rate appears excessive, it’s essential to challenge the charges with Basic Hire Rate evidence, as long as the Claimant is not relying on impecuniosity.

 

At Lacey Solicitors, we specialise in navigating the complexities of insurance law across both jurisdictions. Our team of experienced professionals is dedicated to providing clear, effective legal advice and representation to our insurance clients. Whether you’re dealing with credit hire claims, liability disputes, or policy interpretation, we understand the intricacies of insurance law and work tirelessly to achieve cost effective outcomes quickly. With a reputation for excellence and a deep understanding of the industry, our firm is committed to delivering trusted, reliable legal solutions in the ever-evolving world of insurance in Ireland.

Multiple Injuries and the Assessment of Damages, North and South.

Posted on by Damian McGeady (Partner)

A valued insurance client recently asked for guidance on measuring damages for personal injury in Northern Ireland, where multiple injuries are sustained, and how it compares to the approach South of the border.

 

Green Book Claims

 

The Green Book, or to give its official title, Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Northern Ireland, was recently updated with the publication of the sixth edition. It is the NI equivalent to The Personal Injuries Guidelines. In applying the Green Book, the leading case on aggregating damages for multiple injuries is Wilson v Gilroy & Anor [2008] NICA 23.

 

Intuition

 

Much will depend on a trial judge’s determination and intuition.

 In Wilson, the Court of Appeal concluded;

In cases involving a multiplicity of injuries each of which calls for individual evaluation, it is well established that one should check the correctness of the aggregate sum (which is produced when one adds together the amounts for all of them) by considering the figure on a global or general basis. Essentially, this involves an intuitive assessment of the suitability of the sum produced to compensate the plaintiff’s overall condition.

Application

 

 In McAuley v Russell and others, Mr Justice Humphries applied a small discount on an aggregate award. In that case, he totted up the value of each injury as per the Green Book. The Plaintiff had suffered injuries including Left leg injury, Left arm injury, Right knee, Facial & ENT injuries, Scarring, Rib/chest injury, Concussion, Tooth injury, and an Adjustment Disorder. That amounted to an aggregate value of £250,000.  Applying the test of the Court of Appeal in Gilroy, the Judge reduced the award to £225,000.

 Theoretically, if the Court was satisfied, it could consider not applying a discount. It is not mandated; instead, it is for the Judge to decide. In practice, there will inevitably be a discount in most cases. The discount level may not be significant in some cases, such as the example in McAuley. When acting for Defendant Insurers, we would argue that there should be a much more substantial reduction than that given by the Court in McAuley. The truth is that another judge may well have given a lower award. Given, however, that it comes down to the intuition of the Judge, it would have been a difficult one to appeal.

 

 Claims under the Personal Injuries Guidelines

 

There is much more detailed guidance south of the border, where the proposed revised Guidelines have noted the application of the Jurisprudence of the Superior Courts.  See our previous insights where we highlighted that ‘The Uplift’ can exceed the value of the award for the dominant Injury in applying the new Guidelines.

Cases such as McHugh v Ferol and Lipinski (a minor) v Whelan, where the  High Court noted that the existing guidelines did not provide specific direction regarding the uplift that should be applied in cases of multiple injuries. In McHugh v Ferol, the court established that the combined uplift could, in certain circumstances, exceed the value of the award for the dominant injury. In the Lipinski case, the High Court gave clear guidance on calculating the compensation for psychiatric injury under the new guidelines. 

 In Zaganczyk Petit and others, the Court of Appeal referred to, with approval, the decision in McHugh v Ferol. In this instance, the Court of Appeal reduced the plaintiff’s award and gave further guidance on the methods of valuing psychiatric injury under the guidelines and procedures for calculating the uplift in a case of multiple injuries.

 If the revised guidelines are passed (as expected), these will be put on a formal footing.

Discovery, Implied Undertakings and Contempt of Court. A Conor McGregor Saga.

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

The headlines have been dominated this week by Conor McGregor and the case against him by Ms Nikita Hand where Italian news articles indicate an ‘imminent publication’ of the Discovery from the case.

In November 2024, Ms Hand won her claim for damages and was awarded just shy of €250,000 damages against Mr McGregor on foot of the jury verdict where they found that he had raped Ms Hand six years ago.

McGregor’s legal team have indicated that they intend to appeal against the decision.

Whilst much focus has been made on the legal costs, which is an eye watering 1.3million Euro, the legal principles surrounding Discovery in Ireland is also gathering media attention.

 

Background

 

Lawyers for Ms Hand and Mr McGregor made representations relating to key CCTV evidence which showed Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel, Sandyford, Dublin.

The material was gathered by An Garda Siochana and supposedly her demeanour in the CCTV footage was one of the factors that prompted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) not to bring criminal charges.

It was provided by An Garda Siochana on foot of a High Court order for preparing for and litigating the civil case.

It was shown several times during the case and was the subject of media coverage.

Lawyers for Ms Hand had sought assurances that Mr McGregor would not disseminate the material after newspapers reported on social media comments that claimed the footage would be released this month.

The comments were attributed to Gabriel Ernesto Rapisardo, who Justice Owens said was a business associate of Mr McGregor.

Ray Boland SC for Ms Hand said Mr McGregor intended to disseminate selected pieces of the evidence with a view to “undermining and discrediting” the findings of the court.

Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor said such an order was not necessary as there was already an implied undertaking that material for the case would not be misused or disseminated.

Justice Owens stated that “such leaking would be a gross contempt of Court.”

 

Discovery and Implied Undertakings

 

Discovery is a pre-trial procedure where parties to a lawsuit can obtain evidence from each other. The purpose is to prevent surprises during the trial and ensure that both sides have access to all relevant information.

The Discovery process in Ireland is governed by Order 31, of the Rules of the Superior Courts though our office has also written about alternative means for Discovery.

Documents and information, in this case CCTV Footage obtained by way of discovery in litigation are subject to an implied undertaking that they will not be used other than for the purposes of the proceedings in which they are concerned.

I.e. McGregor and his legal representatives are prohibited from using the CCTV for any other purpose other than the Defence of the civil claim brought against him by Ms Nikita Hand.

The implied undertaking is owed to the court.  Such discovery may not be used to found other causes of action. The law in Ireland is therefore broadly similar to that of NI.

The rationale underpinning the undertaking was explored in Greencore Group plc v Murphy, where Keane J highlighted that it was an invasion of private rights, constituted by discovery:

“The order requiring the production of…documents is an invasion of the right of the person against whom the order is made to keep his documents to himself and it is for this reason that the Court will ensure that documents are not used for any purposes other than the purpose of the particular legal proceedings in which they are produced by making the order for production subject to that implied undertaking.”

Leaking of documents/information would constitute a breach of undertaking.

In the current case Justice Owens confirmed that it would be a gross breach of Ms Hand’s privacy adding that “the material would quickly spread on the internet and reach the furthest corners of that dark hole”.

The undertaking survives notwithstanding that any discovery obtained is often used in open court.  In this case the CCTV footage was show several times during the case and was the subject of significant media coverage.  The fact that there is an inevitable degree of publicity does not justify widespread dissemination of the material for an ulterior purpose.

 

Breaching Implied Undertakings in Discovery in Irish case Law

 

Tobin v. Minister for Defence [2019] IESC 57 highlighted the importance of the discovery process in ensuring fair civil proceedings while acknowledging potential burdens.

Implications of breaching an implied undertaking were explored in the Irish Supreme Court case of Waterford Credit Union v. J & E Davy [2020] IESC 9 where both the High Court and Court of Appeal, whilst finding documentation to be relevant and necessary, denied discovery citing a breach of the implied undertaking by Waterford’s solicitor in separate proceedings, which had improperly used information obtained during discovery.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the breach of the implied undertaking by Waterford’s solicitor in unrelated proceedings should not prevent the discovery of relevant and necessary documents in the current case. The Supreme Court emphasized the primary duty of ensuring substantive justice and maintaining the integrity of the discovery process over procedural technicalities involving breaches by legal representatives in separate instances.

 

Contempt of Court in Ireland

 

Justice Owens in this case confirmed that there was a “real and demonstrable risk” that the footage would be disseminated and, if that happened, it would be a breach of the implied undertaking not to misuse the material and would constitute civil contempt of Court.

Contempt of court is refers to any behaviour or action that disrespects, disobeys or challenges the authority, justice system and dignity of the work of the courts. It protects the administration of justice by ensuring that court orders are obeyed and that courts can run smoothly.

In Ireland, contempt of court remains on a common law footing.  This is in contrast to NI where it is enshrined in legislation through the Contempt of Court Act 1981.  Indeed the Supreme Court in Ireland has been calling for contempt-of-court legislation for some time. In Kelly v O’Neill ([2000] 1 IR 354), Keane J said that “our law in this area is, in many respects, uncertain and in need of clarification by legislation”.

Order 44 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides that those in contempt of a court order can be attached (arrested) and committed to jail, but it doesn’t specify what “contempt” is.

The Law Reform Commission published a Consultation on Contempt of Court in July 1991 under which it recommended legislative codification on the law in this area, but as of 2025 the closest we have seen to codification is the Contempt of Court Bill 2017, which may have gained traction again if its sponsor, Josepha Madigan, had been re-elected.  

In Irish Bank Resolution Corp Ltd v Quinn and Ors [2012] IESC 51, the Supreme Court commented that the law of contempt of court was amorphous and extremely difficult for the layperson to understand and could be unclear even to judges and lawyers.

The Judge even referred to the position in NI in stating;

 “It is 20 years now since the Law Reform Commission urged the need for statutory reform in this area, and some 31 years since such reform took place by statute in the neighbouring jurisdiction. It is most unfortunate that no positive steps have been taken here, with the result that this fraught matter has come on for resolution in an uncertain state of the law.”

It is understood that the Law Reform Commission continues to consider the matter, but due to the urgency of other work in hand, its report on contempt is not expected to be published until late 2025.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has stated that the publication of this final report is awaited before her department considers any changes to this complex area of law.

 

Dealing with Contempt

 

An infamous line that any UFC fans attribute to Mr McGregor comes to mind, “You’ll do nothing.” 

Another is ‘I’d like to apologise…to absolutely nobody.’

In dealing with Civil Contempt, there is the question of the appropriate order, if any, on foot of any finding of contempt.

Such orders may include, but are not limited to custodial orders, but may also include financial orders.  This is against a backdrop of Justice Owens referring to Mr McGregor as ‘one of the wealthiest men in the country.’ 

The Judge considered social media posts in which Mr McGregor was said to have “scandalised the court” after the jury’s verdict where he referred to Ms Hand as a liar and the court as a ‘kangaroo court’.  He indicated that any action at that stage would only give oxygen and more publicity.  He opted to take no action on the “kangaroo court” comments as it would be a “distraction” and “only keep him in the news cycle”.

Justice Owens has indicated it was necessary to ‘nip this in the bud’ and directed Mr McGregor to return ‘all fobs or sticks’ containing the footage to his solicitor and arrange the permanent deletion of the files from computers and phones within one week.

The judge also directed him to make an affidavit indicating what copies had been made and how they were deleted.

 

 

Understanding Liability in James v Halliday [2024] IEHC 281

Posted on by Maria Adams

The recent Irish High Court decision in James v Halliday [2024] IEHC 281 has sparked discussions about road safety and liability apportionment in accidents involving agricultural vehicles. This case, decided on May 8, 2024, addressed a tragic collision between Darren James (the Plaintiff), a delivery driver, and a tractor driven by the deceased William Wilson (the Defendant).

Central to the judgment was the question of negligence and how liability should be divided between the parties.

 

Case Background and Circumstances

 

The accident occurred on January 12, 2018, on the N14 road between Lifford and Letterkenny in Ireland. The Plaintiff was driving at speeds of 60–70 mph on a wet and winding road.  The tractor, operated by the Defendant, lacked a legally mandated amber flashing beacon.

The collision unfortunately resulted in the Defendant’s death and significant injuries to the Plaintiff.

 

Principles of Liability

 

The Court in determining liability, outlined the well-established principles of negligence:

  • Duty of Care: Both parties owed a duty of care to operate their vehicles safely and in accordance with traffic regulations.
  • Breach of Duty:
    • The defendant breached this duty by failing to comply with lighting regulations, which are critical for ensuring visibility.
    • The plaintiff breached his duty by not adapting his driving speed to the road and weather conditions.
  • Causation: Both breaches contributed directly to the collision.

The Court opted to apportion liability having reference to the relative severity and impact of each parties actions.

The High Court determined the following;

 

Negligence by the Defendant:

 

The court held the estate of the Defendant, 75% liable for the accident in circumstances where the Defendant’s failure to illuminate his tractor with a yellow flashing beacon was deemed a “severe breach of duty.”

 

Contributory Negligence of the Plaintiff:

 

The Plaintiff was found 25% liable for driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions, even though he was within the legal limit.  The court noted that the road’s wet and winding nature required greater caution, which the Plaintiff failed to exercise

The role of Yellow Beacons

 

This case highlights the significance of S.I. No. 354/2015 – Road Traffic (Construction and Use of Vehicles) Regulations.

The purpose of these beacons as outlined by the Revised standards of the Road Safety Authority for Agricultural Vehicles are to warn other road users that they are approaching a slow-moving or large vehicle.

These beacons enhance visibility, particularly in low-light or adverse conditions. The failure to use this safety feature was a critical factor in the court’s decision, as it significantly reduced the tractor’s visibility, making the accident foreseeable and preventable.

 

Considerations for future Liability Disputes

 

This judgment sets a clear precedent for how courts may handle liability in similar cases:

  1. Enhanced Scrutiny on Agricultural Vehicles: Operators of such vehicles must comply with all safety regulations, knowing that non-compliance can result in substantial findings of liability.
  2. Reinforcement of Contributory Negligence Principles: Drivers of other vehicles are also expected to adapt their behaviour to prevailing conditions, even if they are not the primary cause of an accident.
  3. Judicial Focus on Safety Standards: The court’s decision underscores the importance of ongoing regulatory compliance as a cornerstone of road safety.

 

Conclusion

 

The High Court’s ruling in James v Halliday serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities shared by all road users. The decision emphasises that adherence to safety regulations, such as the use of yellow beacons, is not merely a legal formality but a vital measure to prevent accidents. By apportioning liability between the parties, the court sent a clear message: negligence on the part of one does not absolve others from their duty to exercise caution.

This case will likely influence future legal considerations in Ireland, reinforcing the critical link between compliance, visibility, and liability in road traffic law.

 

Court of Appeal Ruling: Claim for Credit Hire Can Proceed Despite Expired MOT

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

In the case of Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP. Zo.o [2024] EWCA Civ 1479, the Court of Appeal delivered a crucial judgment that has wide implications for claims involving credit hire costs, particularly when the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid MOT certificate at the time of the accident.

This case addresses the legal complexities around the principle of mitigation and whether the failure to renew an MOT certificate should prevent a Plaintiff from recovering credit hire charges.

 

MOT delays in Northern Ireland

 

MOT delays were already prevalent in NI prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.  In 2020 BBC NI highlighted that faults had been found on 48 out of 55 lifts and that MOT tests were due to be cancelled.

This, coupled with an increasing population, a higher proportion of households with access to a vehicle as well as older vehicles on the road all has resulted in significant delays in MOT testing in NI. Infrastructure Minister for NI Mr John O’Dowd in 2024 outlined an increasingly high demand for MOT tests and confirmed that 1.1 million tests had been carried out in 2023/24.  The highest numbers ever recorded.

 

MOT, Credit Hire and the position in Northern Ireland.

 

Insurers in Northern Ireland are therefore well used to these cases where the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid MOT at the time of the collision but the Plaintiff sought to recover Credit Hire charges.  Morgan v Bryson Recycling Limited and Magill v Donnelly are two cases that come to mind.

Ultimately up until Ali it was held that a court should take a broad view of the circumstances of each case and conduct a case specific inquiry in each case.  For example, a case where the MOT expired a number of years before the accident would be treated differently that a case where the MOT Certificate expired days before the accident.

 

Case Background: The Dispute Over Credit Hire Costs

 

Majid Ali’s vehicle was parked when it was hit by the Defendant’s vehicle.  The Plaintiff, sought to recover over £21,500 from a UK insurer – acting as claims handler for a Polish insurer.

The Plaintiff’s vehicle however did not have a valid MOT certificate at the time of the accident and the certificate had expired four and a half months earlier.

This raised the question of whether the Plaintiff was legally entitled to recover the hire costs, given that his vehicle was not roadworthy.

The usual battlegrounds for Credit Hire cases were, most helpfully, agreed by the Plaintiff and Defendant;

  • The Plaintiff needed to hire a vehicle.
  • The length of hire was reasonable.
  • The type of car hired was reasonable.
  • The Plaintiff was not impecunious.
  • The Defendant did not provide any alternative rate evidence

Furthermore, it was not in dispute that the MOT had expired four and a half months before the road traffic accident nor was there any evidence or suggestion that the Plaintiff intended to obtain a new MOT certificate.

At the County Court level, the Plaintiff’s claim for the hire costs was dismissed on the basis of causation.   That is to say, Majid Ali could not establish that the road traffic accident had, as a matter of law, caused any loss because he had lost the ability to drive a non-roadworthy vehicle only, which he was not legally permitted to use on the road.

The decision was upheld by the High Court and Ali appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The key issue on appeal was whether the lower courts were correct in dismissing the claim for credit hire costs on the grounds of legal causation and the failure to mitigate loss, considering the vehicle could not have been legally driven due to the expired MOT.

 

The Court of Appeal’s Judgment

 

The Court of Appeal revisited and applied earlier case law, notably Hewison v Meridian Shipping [2002] EWCA Civ 1821, and concluded that the minor criminal offence of failing to maintain an MOT certificate should not bar the claimant from recovering credit hire charges.

He disagreed with the Defendant’s submissions that the Plaintiff had suffered no “loss” as a result of the accident.  He relied on Beechwood Birmingham Ltd v Hoyer Group UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 647 is asserting that;

A claimant’s loss is the lack of advantage and inconvenience caused by not having the use of a car ready at hand and at all hours for personal and/or family use.  [The accident] causes the claimant to be deprived of the use of an item of property, which causes inconvenience in the form of inability to use it for private transport. The fact that a claimant does not have a valid MOT certificate for the car does not alter the fact that they have been deprived of its use or the fact that this deprivation would have caused inconvenience but for the hiring.

The absence of a valid MOT certificate was irrelevant to the fact that the Plaintiff was deprived of his vehicle and required a replacement.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith acknowledged that driving without an MOT certificate is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. However, he classified this as a relatively minor infraction, which should not bar recovery of credit hire costs. He noted that the court’s role was to address the direct consequences of the defendant’s negligence – in this case, the loss of the use of the vehicle – and not the minor collateral offence of an expired MOT.

The minor nature of the illegality in this case was insufficient to prevent recovery of the hire charges. The court revisited and reapplied referenced Hewison in stating that a court should not deprive a Plaintiff of damages merely due to a collateral or insignificant illegal act, such as the expired MOT.

Thus, while I would accept that allowing the claim for hire charges in the present case may just about be said to tend towards being harmful to the integrity of the legal system, any harm is in my view strictly limited, leading clearly to the conclusion that it would be disproportionate to have refused the Claimant’s claim on the grounds of ex turpi causa.

 

Broader Legal Implications

 

This ruling has significant implications for both Plaintiffs and Insurers in the context of credit hire claims namely:

  1. Minor Traffic Offences Do Not Automatically Bar Claims: The court established that driving a vehicle without MOT was a relatively minor traffic violation on par with having defective windscreen wipers, or a defective lamp, or a non-conforming number plate and it should not preclude a claimant from recovering credit hire costs.
  2. Causation and Mitigation of Loss: The court clarified that the absence of a valid MOT certificate does not alter the fact that the Plaintiff’s loss – the inability to use the vehicle due to the accident – was caused by the defendant’s negligence. As a result, the claimant was entitled to recover the costs for a replacement hire vehicle.
  3. Potential for Future Cases: Although the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, it acknowledged that there may be cases in the future where more serious traffic offences – such as driving without insurance or with dangerous tyres – could potentially bar a claim or result in a reduction of damages. However, in this case, the court accepted that the failure to renew the MOT certificate was a minor offence and did not warrant a reduction in the claimant’s recovery.

 

Conclusion

 

The Ali v HSF Logistics case draws a conclusion under the long history of this case and similar cases involving a lack of MOT. However, “yet another skirmish-cum-battle in the overall “secular war” between the credit hire industry and defendants’ insurers” continues.

Contact Ruaidhri Austin, Partner in charge of Lacey Solicitors Credit Hire team if you have any questions or require legal advice in any similar cases.

 

Case Study – Credit Hire success for Insurers in Ireland

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

Facts

 

The Claimant, a resident of Northern Ireland was involved in a road traffic accident with the Respondent in Co Donegal and subsequently entered into a credit agreement with an  Accident Management Company (AMC) who assisted the Plaintiff with the recovery, storage and inspection of the damaged vehicle as well as a replacement vehicle on a Credit Hire basis.

The Claimant’s motor vehicle was written off following the accident and a timely payment was made by our instructing insurers in relation to the pre-accident value (PAV) of the Claimant’s vehicle.

Hire came to an end and all invoices, to include the claim for credit hire were presented to our instructing insurers who challenged the daily rate claimed in respect of the hire vehicle.

A Claim Notice was filed and proceedings were issued in Letterkenny, Ireland.

 

Lacey Solicitors Insurance Lawyers are appointed

 

Credit hire is not a common phenomenon within Ireland, when compared to Northern Ireland, where Credit Hire is so prevalent after road traffic accidents.

Our instructing Insurers had been, until this point, spared any real experience with these claims.  Ruaidhri Austin, Partner, was appointed to Defend the matter having regard to our offices position as an ‘all-island’ Insurance Law Firm, and his status as a dual qualified solicitor with considerable credit hire experience in both NI and ROI.

 

Challenging the Credit Hire Rate

 

Our initial assessment of the claim was that it was reasonable for the claimant to hire a replacement vehicle and that the vehicle hired was like for like.  Furthermore the period of hire was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.  The daily rate for the hire vehicle however, appeared to be excessive.

We advised our Irish Insurers of the law surrounding Credit Hire in NI and the UK on the issue of Credit Hire Rates.  We advised that simply stating ‘excessive‘ or ‘economic folly’ in the absence of evidence, would not suffice.

We clarified the position in NI and the UK, namely that the burden of proof rests with the Defendant to demonstrate, by evidence (known as Basic Hire Rate evidence) that there was an alternative rate available and that there was a difference between these two rates.

If we failed to provide any evidence of any evidence of alternative daily rates in the form of Basic Hire Rate evidence, then prima facie, the Claimant would be entitled to recover the whole of the Credit Hire rate claimed.

Alternatively, we clarified, if the Plaintiff alleged, that they could not afford to have opted to use any of the high street hire vehicle providers outlined in the BHR evidence, in circumstances where they were impecunious  then they would likely recover the whole of the credit hire rate claimed.

Ruaidhrí Austin wrote appropriately to the Plaintiff’s representatives asking them whether they intended to rely on impecuniosity.  The position of course being that if they did seek to rely on impecuniosity, that they should Plead and Prove same.

Receiving no response, we instructed VeriRate (formerly Surveyorship) to prepare a Basic Hire Rate Report.

The report confirmed that;

  1. At the time of the accident;

  2. There were like for like vehicles available;

  3. In the Plaintiff’s geographical area in NI;

  4. With a cheaper daily rate.

One high street provider confirmed that their total cost of hire, for the entire period of hire, would have been half the total cost of the hire vehicle provided on a credit basis.

A Tender was made on the basis of this report at the lowest rate.

The Tender was refused and when we confirmed to the Claimant’s representatives that no increase would be made to the Tender the matter proceeded to hearing.

 

The Hearing

 

Ruaidhrí Austin attended the hearing of the action in Letterkenny Courthouse.  We secured the attendance of the author of the Basic Hire Rate report from VeriRate to give evidence.  Bearing in mind the likelihood of a court being unfamiliar with the case law from NI and the UK, our office had a number of Judgments on hand to assist the court.

The Plaintiff sought, during the course of the trial, to allege that she could not have afforded to pay ‘upfront’ any high street provider for a replacement vehicle and had ‘no choice’ but to hire a vehicle on credit terms.

We objected in the strongest terms to the Claimant seeking to rely on impecuniosity at that late stage having failed to Plead or Prove same.  We presented the court with the English case of Zurich Insurance Plc v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357.  

The Plaintiff’s representatives sought to argue that impecuniosity was self proving in circumstances where the Claimant was at the time a student.  We presented the court with the NI case of Kerr v Toal [2015] NIQB 83 which confirmed that assessment of impecuniosity is a fact specific exercise and the Defendant should, prior to hearing, be afforded the opportunity to consider the Plaintiff’s financial documentation by way of Voluntary Discovery.

The Plaintiff finally sought to challenge the BHR evidence itself and the author of the report was robustly challenged on the methodology and data sources from the reports.  Arguments were made that the vehicles listed in the BHR report  were not an exact match for the Plaintiff’s own vehicle and that no evidence could be adduced that these rates would have been available at the exact time of the accident but instead could have been days or weeks later.

We presented the court with the English case of Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 93 which confirmed that a court should not allow overly technical arguments and should attempt a reasonable estimate when it comes to the reports.  The replacement need be no more than in the same broad range of quality and nature as the damaged car.  Furthermore an alternative rate from even a year or so later than the accident date is still likely to throw considerable light on what the spot rate would have been at the time.

 

The Judgment and the Credit Hire Rate

 

The Judge stated that the Plaintiff’s impecuniosity would have convinced him to allow the Credit Hire rate but accepted our office’s position that impecuniosity had not been pleaded nor proven.

In the absence of an impecunious Plaintiff, the Judge accepted the evidence presented VeriRate of a BHR rate and the difference between the BHR rate and the Credit Hire rate.

The Judge found that the BHR evidence and evidence from the VeriRate representative confirmed that the Claimant failed to mitigate their losses in opting to utilise a Credit Hire Rate rather than a High Street Provider and paying ‘upfront.’

The Judge having reference to a number of rates within the BHR report awarded the lowest sum available in the BHR Report.

This resulted in a significant saving to our insurer at more than 50% of the Credit Hire invoice claimed.

The figure awarded in respect of hire by the Court failed to ‘beat’ the Tender made by our office almost one year previously.

 

Key Takeaways

 

  1. Credit Hire claims in the Republic of Ireland are a rare phenomenon but are undoubtedly on the rise.

  2. Those cases where the daily rate appears to be excessive should be challenged by way of Basic Hire Rate evidence provided that the Claimant is not relying on impecuniosity.

  3. If a Claimant is relying on impecuniosity, they should plead and prove it.

  4. Tenders remain an effective tool in the Defendant’s arsenal and any Tender should be made with the benefit of a Basic Hire Rate report.

  5. An allowance should be made for a courts unfamiliarity with these types of claims and Defendants should ensure that they have compelling arguments, supported by case law to challenge any issues that arise should the matter proceed to hearing.

 

 

This case was handled by Ruaidhrí Austin of our office.  Ruaidhrí Austin is the Head of the Credit Hire department in Lacey Solicitors and is known and respected in both NI and ROI for his knowledge and experience of Credit Hire claims across all court levels in both jurisdictions.

 

 

 

 

Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) Claims: Protecting Your Rights and Seeking Compensation in Belfast

Posted on by Maria Adams

Repetitive strain injuries (RSI) are common workplace injuries that occur when the body’s soft tissues, such as muscles, tendons, and ligaments, suffer damage due to overuse. These injuries can cause significant pain and discomfort, often impacting your ability to perform everyday tasks, including work. If your RSI was caused by working conditions or repetitive tasks that were outside of your control, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries.

At Lacey Solicitors in Belfast, we specialise in helping individuals who have suffered from work-related repetitive strain injuries claim the compensation they deserve. If your RSI has negatively affected your life, we are here to provide expert legal advice and support.

What is a Repetitive Strain Injury?

Repetitive strain injuries occur when soft tissues in the body—such as muscles, tendons, ligaments, and nerves—are overstressed through repetitive motion or sustained use. Over time, this strain can cause damage to these tissues, leading to pain, weakness, swelling, numbness, and reduced mobility. RSI is most commonly associated with certain workplace activities that involve frequent, repetitive movements or improper posture.

It is estimated that there are almost half a million sufferers of RSI in the UK – many of these have conditions caused by computers.

Can You Claim Compensation for RSI?

In Northern Ireland, if you’ve developed a repetitive strain injury as a result of someone else’s negligence, you may be able to claim compensation. Employers have a legal duty to protect workers from preventable harm, including ensuring a safe and ergonomic working environment under the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. If your RSI was caused by improper working conditions, such as inadequate equipment, poor posture, or lack of training, you may be entitled to claim.

For example, a waitress who regularly carries heavy trays and suffers from wrist or arm RSI may be able to claim compensation from her employer for the injury caused by the repetitive movements. Similarly, post office workers or factory employees who repeatedly lift heavy items or use vibrating tools are also at risk of developing RSI-related conditions.

Common Types of RSI at Work

Repetitive strain injuries can occur in various types of work environments, especially those that involve physical labour or frequent, repetitive motions. Common causes of RSI at work include:

  • Back, leg, neck, and arm strain from heavy lifting
  • Poor office ergonomics or incorrect seating and equipment
  • Use of vibrating tools (e.g., drills, jackhammers)
  • Impactful movements such as hammering
  • Repetitive use of incorrect tools
  • Lack of safety equipment (e.g., poor footwear or inadequate personal protective equipment)

What is Type 1 and Type 2 RSI?

RSI can be classified into two types to help in diagnosing and proving the injury in a legal setting:

  • Type 1 RSI: This type of RSI is measurable with medical equipment. Conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, or golfers’ elbow fall under this category. These injuries are detectable through scans or tests such as MRI or X-ray.
  • Type 2 RSI: This type of RSI is less visible on medical scans and may involve symptoms like wandering pain, discomfort that varies day-to-day, or aches that are difficult to pinpoint. Although harder to prove, Type 2 RSI can still be compensated if you can demonstrate that it resulted from repetitive tasks or strain at work.

How Do You Prove a Repetitive Strain Injury?

Proving RSI can sometimes be challenging, particularly with Type 2 RSI. However, a strong case can be built by following these steps:

  1. Consult a doctor: It’s essential to seek medical attention for an official diagnosis. Your doctor will help eliminate other possible causes of your symptoms and confirm if your condition is related to repetitive strain.
  2. Keep detailed records: Keep track of all medical appointments, treatments, and consultations. Document the dates and times of your visits, along with travel costs, to support your claim.
  3. Consult a solicitor: Seeking legal advice as soon as possible can improve your chances of success. A solicitor can guide you through the process and help you gather the necessary evidence, including medical reports and expert opinions.

What is an RSI Compensation Claim Worth?

The value of your RSI compensation claim will depend on the severity of your injury and how it has impacted your life. Compensation can cover:

  • Medical costs and treatments
  • Lost earnings if your injury has affected your ability to work
  • Pain and suffering compensation for the physical and emotional toll of your injury
  • Travel expenses for medical appointments or treatments

Since each case is unique, consulting a specialist Insurance solicitor is the best way to get an accurate estimate of what you could be entitled to.

Contact Lacey Solicitors for Help with RSI Claims in Belfast

If you’ve suffered from a repetitive strain injury in the workplace, don’t hesitate to reach out to Lacey Solicitors in Belfast. Our experienced team of solicitors will provide expert advice and guide you through the claims process to ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.

We can assist with all aspects of your claim, from gathering medical evidence to representing you in court if necessary. To discuss your case, contact us today via our online form or call us at 028 9089 6540.

Additional Resources

For more information on health and safety in the workplace, you can refer to these authoritative sources:

 

How Much Is a Personal Injury Claim Worth? A Guide by Lacey Solicitors Belfast

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

If you’ve suffered a personal injury, whether from a car accident, slip and fall, or workplace incident, one of the most pressing questions you’ll have is: How much is my personal injury claim worth? At Lacey Solicitors, a leading injury and insurance law firm with offices in Belfast and Dublin, we understand that the value of your claim is vital to achieving fair compensation. However, determining the exact value of a personal injury claim is not an exact science. In this article, we’ll explain how personal injury claims are assessed, the role of judges in determining the value, and how experienced solicitors like us can help guide you through the process.

 

Understanding How Injury Claims Are Valued

 

Personal injury claims vary widely in value, depending on multiple factors related to the individual’s injuries, recovery, and long-term impact on their life. Each case is unique, and the value of a claim is determined by applying various elements of evidence, including medical reports, expert testimonies, and previous case precedents. Ultimately, the judge’s training, experience, and sense of fairness help arrive at a reasonable and proportionate award.

 

Key Factors in Valuing a Personal Injury Compensation Claim

 

Several critical factors influence the valuation of a personal injury claim. These factors include:

 

1. Severity of the Injury

The extent of the injury is one of the most significant determinants. A minor injury, like a sprained ankle or soft tissue damage, typically leads to a lower compensation amount, while serious injuries, such as fractures, brain injuries, or permanent disability, will attract higher compensation.

 

2. Impact on Quality of Life

Judges assess how your injury affects your daily life, including your ability to work, participate in social activities, and maintain relationships. A more severe injury that has a lasting effect on your quality of life will result in a higher compensation pay-out.

 

3. Pain and Suffering

Compensation for pain and suffering is subjective and can vary based on the severity and duration of the pain. The emotional and psychological impact of an injury, including anxiety or depression, is also considered in this category.

 

4. Medical Expenses and Future Costs

Your medical treatment, rehabilitation, and potential long-term care costs play a role in determining compensation. If you require ongoing care, a judge will factor in these future expenses when assessing the overall claim value.

 

5. Lost Earnings

Compensation for lost earnings is an essential component of any injury claim. If your injury prevents you from working, or reduces your ability to earn, the claim will include compensation for lost wages and potentially for future earning capacity.

 

6. Liability and Negligence

Who is responsible for your injury also plays a role. If the other party is clearly at fault and liable for the incident, you may receive more compensation. However, if there is shared or disputed liability, the claim may be worth less.

 

The Role of Judges in Assessing Injury Claims

 

In Northern Ireland, personal injury claims are assessed by judges, who apply their experience, training, and fairness to evaluate each case individually. There is no one-size-fits-all figure, as each case presents its own unique facts and circumstances. The role of the judge is to:

 

  • Assess the Injury: The judge will carefully evaluate the medical evidence to understand the extent of the injury.
  • Assess the Suffering: The judge will consider the pain, distress, and emotional impact of the injury on the individual.
  • Assess the Severity: The judge will look at how severe the injury is and whether it results in permanent damage or long-term disability.
  • Assess the Impact on Quality of Life: Judges will determine how the injury has altered the individual’s ability to live their normal life.
  • Determine an Appropriate and Proportionate Award: Based on these assessments, the judge will decide on a fair compensation award.

 

Medical Evidence and the Role of Solicitors

 

To assist the court in making an informed decision, solicitors will work to gather medical evidence from expert doctors and healthcare professionals. These medical reports are critical in establishing the seriousness of the injury and any ongoing care needs.

While every case is unique, judges will also refer to guidelines, previous case awards, and established precedents when making their assessment. Experienced solicitors can use these resources to estimate what a judge might award and negotiate with the opposing party accordingly.

For example, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have guidelines for personal injury compensation.

 

  • Northern Ireland: The Sixth Edition of the Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases (known as the Green Book) provides a structured framework for valuing injuries based on their severity. You can find the guidelines here.
  • Republic of Ireland: The Personal Injuries Guidelines in Ireland are similarly used to determine appropriate compensation, setting out ranges for various types of injuries. These guidelines also consider the impact on the claimant’s ability to work and enjoy life.  You can find those guidelines here.

 

Settling the Claim Before Court

 

In many cases, an experienced solicitor may engage with the opposing side to discuss an appropriate settlement. By considering the relevant guidelines, previous similar awards, and medical evidence, a solicitor can predict what a judge would likely award. If both parties agree, a settlement can be reached without the need for a lengthy court process.

However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the case will be taken to court, where a judge will ultimately decide on the compensation.

 

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors?

 

At Lacey Solicitors, we specialise in personal injury claims and Insurance law in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Our team has a unique advantage: we have experience representing both insurers and injured individuals, giving us a comprehensive understanding of how insurance companies assess and settle claims.

This experience allows us to accurately assess the value of your claim and help guide you toward a fair settlement. Whether you’re negotiating a settlement or going to court, our team of experts will ensure that your interests are protected.

 

Contact Lacey Solicitors for Expert Advice

 

If you’ve been injured and want to know how much your personal injury claim is worth, contact Lacey Solicitors today. Our team of experienced insurance lawyers will provide a free consultation to evaluate your case and give you an accurate estimate of the compensation you may be entitled to.

 

Call us now at 02890896540 or fill out our online contact form to get started. Let us help you get the compensation you deserve.

 

Lacey Solicitors Guide to Medical Negligence Claims in Northern Ireland

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

 

Medical Negligence: Understanding Your Rights and Seeking Justice

Both the NHS and the private healthcare sector are filled with exceptionally talented, caring professionals who dedicate their lives to providing us with invaluable care during our most vulnerable moments. These healthcare workers are often under intense pressure, balancing high caseloads and dealing with complex medical situations. Their commitment to patient care is unparalleled, and in many cases, they deliver outstanding results.

However, despite their best efforts, medical negligence can still occur. Often, factors outside an individual healthcare worker’s control, such as staffing shortages, limited funding, or overwhelming patient demand, can contribute to situations where medical care falls below the expected standard. When these unfortunate incidents happen, patients deserve to know their rights and have access to justice.

At Lacey Solicitors, we understand the challenges you may face after suffering due to medical negligence. Our experienced team is here to help guide you through the legal process and secure the compensation you deserve.

What Causes Medical Negligence?

Medical negligence can arise from various factors, some of which are beyond the control of healthcare professionals themselves. While healthcare workers are highly skilled and dedicated, external pressures and system failures can contribute to mistakes or substandard care. Here are some of the most common factors that can lead to medical negligence:

  • Communication Breakdown: Poor communication between healthcare teams, or between doctors and patients, can lead to misunderstandings, misdiagnosis, or incorrect treatment plans. Miscommunication can also delay critical care and compromise patient safety.
  • Inadequate Staffing: Understaffed hospitals and clinics, especially during peak times, can result in medical professionals being overwhelmed, leading to mistakes or missed details. With staff stretched thin, patient care may not be given the attention it requires.
  • Insufficient Funding: The financial constraints faced by the NHS and some private healthcare providers can result in a lack of resources, outdated equipment, and limited access to necessary treatments or specialists. These constraints can significantly impact the level of care provided.
  • Technical Failures: Medical technology plays a critical role in diagnosis and treatment, but equipment failures or technical malfunctions can lead to dangerous consequences. A failure in medical equipment, such as MRI machines, ventilators, or monitoring systems, can lead to misdiagnoses or insufficient care.
  • Inadequate Policies and Procedures: In some cases, hospitals or healthcare facilities may not have effective policies or protocols in place to ensure patient safety. This can lead to lapses in care, overlooked risks, or failure to follow best practice guidelines.
  • Healthcare Worker Incompetency: While the vast majority of healthcare professionals are highly skilled, errors can happen when a healthcare worker lacks the necessary competence, training, or experience to perform certain tasks. This can result in serious mistakes, such as surgical errors or incorrect diagnoses.
  • Inadequate Training: Medical professionals are required to keep their skills up to date, but in some cases, staff may not have received adequate training on the latest techniques, equipment, or protocols. This can lead to substandard care or preventable errors.

Steps to Take If You’ve Suffered Medical Negligence

If you believe you have been a victim of medical negligence, it’s important to take the following steps to protect your rights and pursue a claim for compensation:

1. Speak to Your Healthcare Provider

If you have suffered harm due to medical negligence, the first step is often to speak to the healthcare provider or institution involved. A formal complaint about the care you received can help document the issue and may prompt an investigation. In many cases, a complaint may lead to an admission of liability or a recognition that a mistake was made, which is essential for progressing a legal claim. An admission of liability can serve as a critical piece of evidence if you decide to pursue compensation.

2. Seek Legal Advice

It’s crucial to seek legal advice from a solicitor who specialises in medical negligence cases. A legal expert can guide you through the often-complex process of making a claim. It’s important to act promptly, as in Northern Ireland there is typically a three-year limitation period within which a claim must be made, starting from the date of the incident or when the injury was discovered. However, it’s always worth seeking advice, even if the incident occurred some time ago.

When you consult a solicitor, it’s helpful to create a personal timeline of events. Document the details of what happened, how it has impacted your life, and the ongoing effects on your well-being. This timeline can provide crucial information to your legal team.

3. Gather Medical Records and Evidence

One of the most important steps in pursuing a medical negligence claim is collecting all relevant medical records and evidence. Your solicitor will request copies of your records, which could include:

  • Letters from your GP or specialists about your condition
  • Records of your stay in the hospital
  • Reports detailing the incident or treatment failure
  • Documentation of any subsequent treatments, appointments, or consultations

These records will form the basis of your claim and help your solicitor assess the viability of the case.

4. Obtain a Preliminary Opinion on Liability

Your solicitor will work with a medical expert in the relevant field to get a preliminary opinion on the liability of the healthcare provider. This expert will review your case and assess the standard of care you received, determining whether the healthcare professional breached their duty of care and the likely consequences of that breach.

This expert opinion will be crucial for guiding the next steps in your legal journey. It provides a clear view of whether the claim has merit and the likelihood of success.

Lacey Solicitors: Experienced Clinical Negligence Solicitors

Selecting a solicitor with a strong background in medical negligence claims can significantly streamline the process and enhance your chances of securing the compensation you deserve. Medical negligence cases often involve complex legal and medical issues, which require a solicitor who has both the legal expertise and a deep understanding of healthcare practices.

Ruaidhri Austin at Lacey Solicitors is dedicated to handling all medical negligence claims within our office and has extensive experience in this challenging area of law. Ruaidhri’s caseload includes a number of high-profile and notable medical negligence cases, demonstrating his commitment to securing justice for his clients.

  1. He secured compensation for patients sexually assaulted by two doctors at Naas General Hospital, Kildare, and appeared on the RTÉ Investigates – Abuse of Trust documentary on RTÉ One.
  2. He secured compensation for the the family of a Geoffrey Foot who tragically died following treatment at Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast.
  3. He also acted on behalf of the family of a lady who died after an ‘unnecessary’ surgery that was later concealed by the hospital

Ruaidhri’s experience in these high-profile cases ensures that your medical negligence claim will be handled with the utmost professionalism and care, giving you the best possible chance of success.

In Conclusion: Pursuing Justice for Medical Negligence

Medical negligence claims are complex and often require significant time and resources. The process can be emotionally and financially draining for victims, but it’s important to remember that justice is possible.

If you’ve suffered harm due to medical negligence, it’s essential to speak with an experienced medical negligence solicitor. At Lacey Solicitors Belfast, we’ve helped countless clients navigate the legal process and successfully secure compensation in high-profile medical negligence cases. We are here to support you every step of the way, ensuring that you receive the compensation you deserve for your pain, suffering, and loss.

Contact Lacey Solicitors today using our online form to discuss your case with one of our expert solicitors and take the first step towards securing justice.

Speak to an Expert at Lacey Solicitors today.

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

Send Message

Quick Links

Dublin

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

Belfast

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

© 2025 Lacey Solicitors. All Rights Reserved

Made with by VINDICTA®