New E-Scooter and E-Bike Regulations in Ireland: Safety, Rules, and Legal Updates for 2025

On 10th March 2025, The Irish Times reported on an incident where a jogger suffered a broken leg after an alleged collision with an e-bike on the footpath. This raises significant concerns for users of e-bikes and e-scooters in Ireland, particularly regarding liability under civil and criminal law. A key issue is whether the e-bike involved — described as an ENGWE EP-2 Pro Folding e-bike — qualifies as a mechanically propelled vehicle (MPV), as per the Road Traffic and Transport Act 2023, which introduced the concept of a “powered personal transporter” (PPT). The legal clarity surrounding such vehicles continues to develop, especially with the introduction of new regulations that prioritise the safety of both the user and the public.

The Road Traffic and Transport Act 2023: Key Legal Updates for E-Scooters and E-Bikes in Ireland

The Road Traffic and Transport Act 2023 has officially introduced new regulations for e-scooters and e-bikes in Ireland. These regulations aim to ensure the safety of not just e-scooter and e-bike riders, but also pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. The new framework categorises e-scooters and e-bikes under Personal Powered Transporters (PPTs), with specific technical and usage parameters.

Key New Regulations for E-Scooters in Ireland:

  • E-scooters with a maximum power output of 400 W, a maximum speed of 20 km/h, and a weight of 25 kg are now legal for use on public roads. However, any e-scooter exceeding these parameters will remain illegal.

  • Age restrictions: E-scooter users must be 16 years or older to ensure safety for both riders and the public. Riders are allowed to use their e-scooters in cycle lanes and bus lanes, but not on footpaths or in pedestrianised zones.

  • Usage Requirements: Users must not carry passengers or goods, follow speed limits, and avoid using mobile phones while riding. Additionally, e-scooters must be fitted with necessary safety features, including front and rear lights, reflectors, brakes, and a bell.

 

New E-Bike Regulations in Ireland:

  • E-bikes with a maximum power output of 250 W, a motor that cuts off once pedalling stops, and a maximum speed of 25 km/h will be classified as bicycles under Irish law. E-bike riders will have the same rights as cyclists, including the ability to use cycle lanes and bus lanes, but they are not permitted to use footpaths.

  • For e-mopeds, which are more powerful than e-bikes, additional regulations apply due to their higher speed potential:

    • E-mopeds with a maximum speed of 25 km/h and a power output of 1000 W will be classified as L1e-A e-mopeds, requiring helmet use, and will be permitted to use cycle lanes and bus lanes.
    • E-mopeds with a maximum speed of 45 km/h and a power output of 4000 W (L1e-B e-mopeds) will require vehicle registration, an AM driver’s licence, and insurance for throttle-powered versions. These e-mopeds will be prohibited from using cycle lanes, bus lanes, footpaths, and pedestrianised zones.

 

The Irish vs. UK Approach to E-Scooter Regulations

 

Until recently, e-scooter usage in Ireland was in a legal grey area. Operators were unsure whether their e-scooters could be legally used on public roads and whether they required a driving licence, insurance, or NCT. The situation was clearer in the UK, where private e-scooters were generally illegal on public roads due to requirements for driving licences, insurance, and vehicle registration under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

In Ireland, the introduction of the Road Traffic and Roads Act 2023 created a new category for Personal Powered Transporters (PPTs), offering clarity. The Road Traffic (Electric Scooters) Regulations 2024 confirmed that e-scooters are classified as PPTs, with rules governing their safe use on public roads. Notably, users must be 16 years or older to operate e-scooters, and the regulations will be enforceable by An Garda Síochána.

Recent Developments and Public Safety Initiatives

From 20 May 2025, the regulations will take effect, providing clear technical and usage specifications for e-scooter and e-bike users. These changes include guidelines that outline how e-scooters and e-bikes can be legally and safely used in public spaces, enhancing safety for pedestrians, other road users, and cyclists. Furthermore, a public information campaign will help educate the public on the new regulations and safety practices.

The National Transport Authority has also restricted the carriage of e-scooters on public transport, citing concerns about lithium-ion batteries and quality control. This restriction will apply to buses, trains, and other modes of transport starting October 2024.

Safety Concerns and the Need for Ongoing Regulation

 

While the new regulations bring much-needed clarity, the safety of e-scooter riders and the general public remains a priority. Recent reports indicate an increase in serious accidents involving e-scooters and e-bikes, particularly fatal injuries among minors. The absence of a minimum age requirement for some vehicles and the lack of an insurance requirement have raised concerns. Continued oversight and ongoing legislative adjustments will be crucial as e-scooter and e-bike usage continues to rise across the country.

Conclusion

 

The introduction of the Road Traffic and Roads Act 2023 represents a major step forward in regulating e-scooters and e-bikes in Ireland. With the new regulations set to come into effect by 20 May 2025, Ireland is taking a proactive approach to ensure the safe integration of these vehicles into the country’s evolving transport landscape. By balancing the needs of e-scooter and e-bike riders with the safety of other road users, these regulations offer a promising framework for Ireland’s future mobility. However, as with all new technologies, further regulation may be necessary to address emerging challenges and ensure the safety and rights of everyone on the road.

Lodgments don’t work in Northern Ireland and are ineffective. A tale of misuse and misunderstanding.

‘We’ve been advised by our panel of lawyers repeatedly that lodgments don’t work and are ineffective.’  That was reported to us by a leading UK insurer during a recent meeting where our office was providing a presentation and update on litigation in NI.

It cannot be further from the truth.

Understanding the intricacies of legal procedures such as payments into court (popularly known as a ‘lodgment’) is crucial in effectively managing cases and protecting a client’s interests. Lodgments are a procedural tool often used as a means of resolving disputes without proceeding to a formal hearing, and their proper use can lead to cost savings, risk management, and streamlined settlement processes. This article will explore the key aspects of lodgments, as laid out under Order 21 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC), and how they can be leveraged in insurance defence work.

 

What is a Lodgment?

 

A lodgment is a legal procedure where a defendant makes a payment into court with the intention of satisfying the plaintiff’s monetary claim. It is known as a ‘tool of compromise.’  It is not an admission of liability but offers a sum of money that the defendant believes should satisfy the Plaintiff’s claim as well as an agreement to pay the associated costs. It doesn’t create any binding legal precedent or estoppel. In essence, it is a procedural mechanism aimed at encouraging settlement and resolving disputes amicably.

It is similar in nature to the ‘Part 36’ mechanism used in England and Wales under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

 

Key Requirements and Timing for Lodgments

 

The payment into court must reflect the defendant’s estimation of the sum required to resolve the claim, and it may include an element for interest up to the date of the lodgment.

In terms of timing and time limits, generally, the lodgment must be made up to 28 days after the Notice of Intention to Defend has been entered.

For personal injury actions, the lodgment must be made up to 28 days after the plaintiff serves medical evidence supporting the claim. The time limit may be extended in certain circumstances, such as when the plaintiff has not provided requested particulars or evidence.

The County Court (Amendment) Rules (Northern Ireland) 2017 makes provision for lodgements to be made after service of medical evidence other than the plaintiff’s i.e. 28 days after service of any Defence Medical evidence.

 

The Process of Accepting a Payment into Court

 

After the lodgment is made, the defendant must wait for the plaintiff’s decision. The plaintiff has 28 days to accept the lodgment. If the plaintiff accepts the lodgment, the case is considered discontinued, and the matter is settled. If the plaintiff does not accept the lodgment within the time frame, the case continues.

 

Impact of Accepting a Lodgment

 

If the plaintiff accepts the lodgment, it is treated as full satisfaction of the claim, and the case is effectively discontinued. The defendant is responsible for paying the plaintiff’s costs and expenses reasonably incurred up to the point of the lodgment, and the plaintiff can withdraw the lodged sum.

Importantly, when a lodgment is made, it does not admit liability on the defendant’s part but is purely a procedural step designed to mitigate the risk of further legal costs and a prolonged trial. As such, it serves as an important negotiation tool in resolving cases early and cost effectively, especially when the defendant believes that settlement is a preferable outcome.

 

What Happens if the Lodgment is Not Accepted and not ‘beaten’?

 

If the plaintiff chooses not to accept the lodgment, the case continues and will go to trial on all issues unless the parties settle on a higher/lower figure.

The fact and amount of the lodgment must not be communicated to the trial judge until all questions of liability and quantum are determined.

If the plaintiff wins and the final award exceeds the amount of the lodgment, the defendant will be liable for the difference along with full costs.

However, if the plaintiff fails to recover a sum greater than that lodged, there is an effect on the costs due to the Plaintiff and Defendant.

The Defendant is entitled to 25% of the scale fee for solicitor and outlay and 100% of the scale fee for counsel on the scale of the amount claimed in the civil bill.

The Plaintiff is only entitled to recover 75 % of the scale fee for his solicitor and outlay and nothing for counsel on the scale of the amount awarded.

This highlights the importance of making an accurate and reasonable lodgment, as it can limit a defendant’s financial exposure in the long run.

 

Case Study #1: The Impact of a Timely Lodgment at Trial

 

Lacey Solicitors recently defended a leading Global Insurer in a ‘damage-only’ road traffic accident claim where liability was admitted.

The plaintiff’s claim amounted to just over £23,000.00. In response, we made a timely payment into court of £15,000.00 within 28 days of proceedings being issued.

The Lodgement was refused by the Plaintiff.

Our office then took steps to robustly challenge all aspects of the claim presented to include Basic Hire Rate reports to challenge the hire claim.

The matter proceeded to full hearing and the court ultimately awarded the plaintiff £13,583.44, which was less than the lodgment amount. The court ruled that:

  • £13,583.44 was to be paid to the plaintiff.
  • The remaining £1,416.56 was refunded to the defendant along with any accrued interest.

There were significant cost savings to our instructing insurer.

Had the plaintiff accepted the lodgment offer, they would have received more money than the eventual court award. The timely lodgment saved our insurer significant legal costs and provided a strong reminder of the value of considering lodgments in settlement negotiations.

 

Case Study #2: The Impact of a Timely Lodgments during Negotiations

 

Orla McAteer of our office was instructed by an Irish Insurer in a material damage-only claim. The Plaintiff initially sought £4,748.86 in damages.

We made a Payment into Court in the sum of £3,100.00 in satisfaction of the Plaintiff’s claim.

The Plaintiff’s solicitors proceeded to file and serve a Certificate of Readiness, indicating that the Payment into Court was refused and their intention to continue with the case.

However, only last month, at the final stage of proceedings, the Plaintiff’s solicitors sought to accept the lodgment.

They were out of time to do so and furthermore by this stage, they had incurred additional costs and court fees as well as counsel’s fees.

Lacey Solicitors recommended consent to a late uplift but ensured that the acceptance of the Payment into Court was subject to specific conditions:

  • The Plaintiff was responsible for our entire Counsel’s fee.
  • Our instructing insurer would not pay any of their Counsel’s fees
  • Our instructing insurer would not pay for the stamp duty fee on the Certificate of Readiness.
  • Our instructing insurer would only pay 75% of their professional fee.

Had the Plaintiff’s solicitors accepted the Payment into Court earlier, they could have avoided the additional costs associated with both sets of Counsel’s fees and the costs of lodging a Certificate of Readiness. This further highlights the importance of timely consideration of settlement offers to minimise legal costs risks for the Plaintiff.

 

Considerations for Insurers and Insurance Defence Firms

 

Early Settlement: Lodgments can offer a strategic opportunity to settle cases early, saving both time and legal costs. For insurance companies, this can be an effective risk management tool, preventing unnecessary litigation.

Cost Management: By making a lodgment, the defendant can ensure that they are only liable for the costs incurred up to the date of lodgment, rather than facing increased costs if the case goes to trial.

Interest: The lodgment must include interest up to the date of the payment, which can be a factor in evaluating the amount to be lodged, particularly in long-running disputes.

Court Procedures: For insurance defence firms, familiarity with the court processes surrounding lodgments and time limits is vital. This includes understanding the potential for late acceptance, and the role of the judge in assessing costs.

 

Conclusion on Lodgments in NI

 

Lodgments and payments into court are vital tools for defendants, particularly in insurance defence cases, offering an effective way to resolve disputes without the need for lengthy court proceedings. By making a lodgment, defendants can limit their exposure to risk, reduce legal costs, and, if accepted, bring matters to a swift and final conclusion. However, it is important to carefully consider the timing, amount, and interest, as well as the potential consequences if the lodgment is not accepted. Understanding these nuances can make a significant difference in how claims are managed and ultimately resolved.

Lacey Solicitors have a respected reputation as specialist litigation solicitors and we pride ourselves on being able to assist our clients in navigating the complex court procedures, ensuring that their interests are protected at every stage of the legal process.  Use our online Contact Us form to learn more.

 

Case Study: Successful Motorcycle Accident Claim – Ian’s £275,000 Settlement

Client: Ian M.
Settlement: £275,000
Location: Ballymena, Northern Ireland
Case Type: Road Traffic Accident Personal Injury Claim


Overview: Ian’s Motorcycle Accident and Personal Injury Claim

Ian, a dedicated tyre fitter from Ballymena, was involved in a serious motorcycle accident that left him with severe injuries. While overtaking stationary vehicles on a busy Belfast road, one of the vehicles made a sudden right turn, causing a collision with Ian’s motorcycle. The impact resulted in fractures to his lumbar vertebra and left femur.

Ian required immediate medical attention and was transported by air ambulance to Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, where he underwent surgery on both his back and leg.


Why Ian Chose Lacey Solicitors for His Personal Injury Claim

At the time of the accident, Ian was physically unable to return to his job due to the pain and limited mobility from his injuries. Despite the PSNI and Ian’s insurance company suggesting that he was at fault for the accident, Ian felt that the collision was not his responsibility.

Frustrated by the situation and unsure of his next steps, Ian reached out to Lacey Solicitors’ personal injury team for legal advice. After a free, no-obligation consultation with Ruaidhri Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors, Ian received the legal guidance he needed. Ruaidhri carefully reviewed the details of the accident and quickly scheduled a home visit to discuss the case in greater depth and address the initial claims checklist.

After a thorough investigation of the accident, Lacey Solicitors decided to pursue a personal injury claim against the driver of the other vehicle. They sent a formal letter of claim to the insurance company of the at-fault driver and arranged for expert medical reports from an orthopaedic consultant in Derry/Londonderry to support Ian’s case.


The Insurance Company Denies Liability 

The insurance company for the other vehicle, one of the largest in the world, immediately denied liability. They claimed that Ian was responsible for the accident because he was overtaking multiple vehicles. They argued that the injuries sustained by Ian were not caused by their insured driver’s actions.

Lacey Solicitors firmly rejected this argument and issued court proceedings on behalf of Ian. They also contacted the PSNI to request an official investigation into the other driver’s actions.


PSNI Investigation and Charges Against the Other Driver

Initially, the PSNI had told Ian that he was at fault for the accident. However, after Lacey Solicitors conducted further interviews with eyewitnesses, it became clear that the other driver had failed to check properly before turning. Lacey Solicitors shared this new information with the PSNI, who subsequently launched a full investigation.

As a result of the investigation, the other driver was charged with dangerous driving. The driver later pleaded guilty in court, providing strong evidence in favour of Ian’s claim.


Settlement Negotiations and Legal Strategy for Motorcycle Accident

With the guilty plea from the defendant driver, Lacey Solicitors proceeded with a strong legal strategy. The case was brought before the High Court of Northern Ireland in Belfast, where a team of expert legal professionals, including Senior Counsel, Junior Counsel, and medical specialists, worked together to ensure Ian received fair compensation for his injuries.

The case was successfully settled for £275,000 without Ian having to attend court. This settlement not only covered Ian’s medical expenses but also compensated him for the pain and suffering caused by his injuries, as well as loss of earnings due to his inability to return to work.


Why Choose Lacey Solicitors for Your Motorcycle Accident Claim?

Lacey Solicitors, with offices in Belfast and Dublin, are specialists in personal injury law and motor liability cases and have a proven track record of securing substantial compensation for clients involved in road traffic accidents, including motorcycle accidents. Our dedicated team of solicitors offers expert advice, support, and representation throughout the entire claims process.

Whether you’ve been involved in a motorcycle accident or sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, our experienced personal injury solicitors are here to help you receive the compensation you deserve.


Contact Lacey Solicitors in Belfast Today

If you’ve been injured in a motorcycle accident, trust Lacey Solicitors to provide you with expert legal guidance. We offer a free, no-obligation consultation with one of our personal injury solicitors to discuss your case and outline your legal options.

Contact us today through our online contact form or call our Belfast office. Our dedicated personal injury team is here to support you and help you navigate the claims process with confidence.

An update on Pre-Litigation and Litigation Issues in for Injury and Insurance Law Firms in Ireland

For insurance defence law firms in Ireland, understanding the intricacies of pre-litigation issues, the litigation process, and the potential for appeals in personal injury  claims is vital. This blog explores essential topics such as PIAB authorisation, statute of limitations, interrogatories, and nervous shock claims. We’ll break down these issues and offer insights on how they can impact any givendefence strategy.


1) Pre-Litigation Issues

 

PIAB Authorisation: Understanding its Role

The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) plays a central role in personal injury claims in Ireland. One of the key pre-litigation issues to address is whether PIAB authorisation is required before a claim can proceed. This is usually necessary when seeking damages for personal injury.

However, complications can arise in cases involving assault, medical negligence, or product liability claims. In the case of Clarke v O’Gorman (2014), the court clarified that PIAB authorisation is not a jurisdictional bar but must be clearly pleaded.

A key takeaway here is that for personal injury claims, PIAB authorisation is generally required. However, claims for non-material breaches, such as distress or data protection violations, require careful consideration to determine if they fall under the PIAB Act.

Case Study: Dillon v. Irish Life (2024)

In Dillon v. Irish Life (2024), the High Court examined whether a claim for distress, anxiety, and upset was a civil action for damages under the PIAB Act. The court ruled that such claims do require PIAB authorisation, stressing the importance of clear and proper pleading. This decision has important ramifications for claims that mix non-material breaches like data protection violations with personal injury claims.

Pre-Litigation Correspondence: A Critical Step

Pre-litigation engagement can be crucial for shaping the direction of a case. Correspondence with the plaintiff’s solicitor can confirm whether PIAB authorisation is necessary, help identify the correct defendant, and serve as a foundation for settlement negotiations. It’s important to be cautious, as errors in identifying defendants or failing to address statute of limitations issues could lead to a statute-based defence as we outlined in our previous article on Understanding Limitation Periods for Personal Injury Claims in Ireland


2) Clear and Specific Pleadings during litigation

 

Interrogatories: New Rule Changes

The introduction of SI 363 of 2024 allows a party to deliver up to 20 interrogatories to the other side without court permission. This provides an opportunity for the defence to clarify facts before the discovery phase, which could reduce the need for extensive document production. However, interrogatories must meet strict criteria, including being relevant, concise, and focused on facts that are likely to be known to the responding party.


The Importance of Pleadings

Practitioners will be aware that Irish courts are becoming increasingly strict regarding the quality of pleadings. Defendants must ensure their defences are specific, clear, and detailed, particularly when it comes to contentious issues like contributory negligence or fraud. The case of Morgan v. ESB (2021) highlighted the need for defences to be precise and not vague or boilerplate.

Key considerations for defendants include:

  • Explicitly pleading fraud.
  • The requirement for an affidavit of verification in many cases.
  • Providing detailed responses on contributory negligence.

Case Study: Naughton v. Cool Runnings (2021)

In Naughton v. Cool Runnings (2021), the court reinforced the need for clear and specific pleadings. The case stressed that vague or overly general defences could damage a defendant’s case, leading to potential liability.


3) Calderbank offers and Personal Injury Guidelines

 

The Role of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal is placing increased scrutiny on both plaintiffs and defendants. In Collins v. Parm (2024), the court reduced the plaintiff’s damages after the plaintiff failed to beat a Calderbank offer. However, the court did not order costs against the plaintiff. This case demonstrates the significance of strategic decisions, especially around settlement offers and their impact on the final judgment.

Personal Injury Guidelines: Draft Amendments

The Judicial Council’s Personal Injury Guidelines have recently been revised. On 21 October 2024, the Board increased the guidelines by 16.7% in response to global inflation. These changes are not retrospective but have a significant effect on the calculation of damages in personal injury cases for insurance law firms in Ireland, particularly for those negotiating settlements or preparing for trials.


4) Nervous Shock Claims Post-Germaine v. Day

 

Nervous Shock: Clarifications Post-Germaine v. Day

The Germaine v. Day case has redefined the scope of nervous shock claims in Ireland, particularly in healthcare settings. Claimants seeking compensation for nervous shock now face stricter criteria. To succeed in a nervous shock claim, plaintiffs must show that their psychiatric injury was caused by a sudden and traumatic event.

To succeed in a nervous shock claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate the following:

  1. They suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness.
  2. The injury was shock-induced.
  3. The shock was caused by the defendant’s act or omission.
  4. The injury resulted from actual or anticipated physical injury to the plaintiff or another person.
  5. The defendant owed a duty of care, and it was foreseeable that their actions could cause such injury.

In evaluating these claims, the Glencar test applies, considering factors like whether the injury was foreseeable, the proximity of the relationship, and whether it is fair and just to impose a duty of care.


Conclusion: Proactive and modern Defence Strategies in Insurance Claims

 

For insurance law firms in Ireland, understanding and addressing the complexities of pre-litigation and litigation issues is essential to a robust defence strategy. From confirming the PIAB authorisation requirements to managing the statute of limitations, interrogatories, and nervous shock claims, each step in the process can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

By proactively addressing these issues and ensuring clear and specific pleadings, insurance defence lawyers can better navigate the evolving landscape of personal injury litigation. This will help ensure a more effective defence that aligns with current legal standards and judicial interpretations.

If you need further guidance on any of these issues, our team of experienced insurance defence solicitors is here to assist you.

Tinnitus Claim Compensation Belfast: Expert Legal Help from Lacey Solicitors

If you’ve developed tinnitus following a car accident, you may be entitled to claim compensation and make a tinnitus claim. Lacey Solicitors in Belfast previously wrote about Noise Induced Hearing Loss and Tinnitus injuries.  Lacey Solicitors in Belfast are experience hearing loss solicitors specialising in tinnitus claims.   At Lacey Solicitors, we understand the challenges that tinnitus brings, and our expert team is dedicated to helping you secure the compensation you deserve. Contact us for a free consultation and let us guide you through the claims process with care and expertise.

Tinnitus, the perception of ringing, buzzing, or hissing in the ears, is a distressing condition that can significantly impact your daily life. For those who develop tinnitus following a car accident, the emotional and physical toll can be compounded by the trauma of the incident. If you’ve experienced tinnitus after an accident, Lacey Solicitors Injury Law Firm in Belfast is here to help you secure the compensation you deserve. Our team of experienced personal injury solicitors understands the difficulties of living with tinnitus and is ready to provide expert legal guidance.

What is Tinnitus and How Does It Relate to Accidents?

 

Tinnitus refers to the sensation of hearing sounds such as ringing, buzzing, or hissing without any external source. While it can vary in intensity and duration, tinnitus can have a significant effect on a person’s quality of life. It’s typically regarded as a symptom rather than a disease, and in many cases, it can be triggered by head or neck injuries sustained in an accident.

Causes of Tinnitus After a Car Accident

 

Tinnitus can develop after a car accident due to a variety of factors associated with the trauma of the crash. Common causes include:

  1. Whiplash: A sudden, jerking motion of the head and neck, often seen in rear-end collisions, can lead to whiplash. This injury can disrupt blood flow and nerve function related to the auditory system, which can cause tinnitus.

  2. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI): A direct blow to the head or severe shaking can cause brain injuries that damage the auditory pathways, leading to tinnitus.

  3. Exposure to Loud Noises: Accidents often involve loud noises, such as the deployment of airbags or the crash itself. These noises can damage the delicate hair cells in the inner ear, which can cause both hearing loss and tinnitus.

  4. Pressure Changes: During rapid deceleration, the pressure change in the ear can cause damage to the eardrum or other structures in the middle and inner ear, potentially leading to tinnitus.

  5. Physical Damage to the Ear: In some cases, accidents can cause cuts, fractures, or other injuries to the ear, including damage to the eardrum or cochlea, which can result in tinnitus.

  6. Stress and Anxiety: Emotional distress following an accident can exacerbate tinnitus. Anxiety often amplifies the perception of internal sounds, making the condition more noticeable.

 

Health Implications of Tinnitus After an Accident

 

Tinnitus can have wide-ranging effects on your physical and mental well-being. Common implications include:

  • Sleep Disturbances: The constant noise can make it difficult to sleep, leading to fatigue, irritability, and difficulty concentrating during the day.
  • Concentration Problems: The persistent sound can act as a distraction, which affects your ability to perform tasks and work efficiently.
  • Mental Health Struggles: Chronic tinnitus can lead to anxiety, depression, and frustration. The condition may also result in social isolation if it prevents you from engaging in social activities.
  • Physical Discomfort: Stress and anxiety associated with tinnitus can lead to physical issues such as neck and jaw pain, headaches, and tension.

 

What Treatments Are Available for Tinnitus?

 

While there is no universal cure for tinnitus, there are several treatments available that can help alleviate symptoms and improve your quality of life:

  • Sound Therapy: White noise machines or tinnitus maskers can help by masking the internal sounds, making tinnitus less noticeable.
  • Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT): CBT can help you manage the emotional and psychological effects of tinnitus by reducing stress and anxiety.
  • Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT): TRT combines sound therapy with counselling to help you adjust to tinnitus and reduce the emotional distress it causes.
  • Neuromodulation: A new treatment that combines sound and electrical stimulation of sensory pathways has shown promise in reducing the severity of tinnitus.
  • Medications: Antidepressants or anti-anxiety medications may help alleviate symptoms. Additionally, non-medicated therapies like yoga, meditation, and mindfulness can also provide relief.

While treatments can improve the condition, for some individuals, tinnitus may be a long-term issue, especially following an accident.

How Much is a Tinnitus Claim Worth in Northern Ireland?

 

If you have developed tinnitus following a car accident, you may be wondering how much compensation you could be entitled to. While there is no precise formula for determining the value of a tinnitus claim, guidance is available to estimate potential compensation based on the severity of the condition.

Here’s a rough guide to compensation amounts for tinnitus in Northern Ireland:

  • Mild Tinnitus: If your tinnitus is mild and doesn’t significantly interfere with your daily life, compensation can be up to £20,000.
  • Moderate Tinnitus: For moderate tinnitus, where symptoms cause a moderate level of disruption, compensation can range from £20,000 to £40,000.
  • Severe Tinnitus: In cases of severe tinnitus, where the condition has a significant impact on your ability to lead a normal life, compensation can range from £40,000 to £90,000.

It’s important to note that these amounts are general guidelines, and the actual compensation in any case will depend on the specific circumstances. A judge will assess your case based on their experience, training, and sense of fairness, which means compensation may vary depending on your individual condition.

How Can Lacey Solicitors Help You Get Compensation for Tinnitus?

 

If you developed tinnitus following an accident, you may be entitled to compensation for the physical, emotional, and financial burden caused by the condition. Lacey Solicitors Injury Law Firm in Belfast can help you navigate the claims process and secure compensation for:

  • Pain and Suffering: Compensation for the distress and discomfort caused by tinnitus.
  • Medical Costs: Covering the cost of private treatments, therapies, and hearing aids related to tinnitus.
  • Loss of Earnings: If tinnitus has affected your ability to work, you may be entitled to claim compensation for lost income.
  • Future Care Needs: If you require ongoing treatment or support for tinnitus, we can help you secure compensation for future expenses.

 

Time Limits for Tinnitus Claims

 

In Northern Ireland, you generally have three years from the date of the accident or from when you first became aware of your tinnitus to make a claim. It’s essential to consult with a solicitor as soon as possible to ensure you don’t miss the deadline for your claim.

Contact Lacey Solicitors Today for Expert Legal Help

 

If you’ve developed tinnitus after a car accident, Lacey Solicitors Injury Law Firm in Belfast is here to help. We offer a free consultation to assess your case and guide you through the legal process.

Our team of expert solicitors is dedicated to helping you recover compensation for the suffering caused by tinnitus. Contact us using our online form today to get the legal support you need.

Finegan v. McDonald [2025] and Conflicting Expert Evidence in Personal Injury Claims in NI

The recent case of David Finegan v. Margaret McDonald [2025] NIKB 14 highlights a key challenge in personal injury claims: the difficulty of navigating conflicting expert evidence, especially when it concerns multiple heads of claim, such as psychological injuries (including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD) and financial loss. The outcome of this case offers valuable insights for personal injury solicitors, insurers, and Plaintiffs, underscoring the critical role expert evidence plays in determining the outcome of such claims. This decision, handed down by Colton J, highlights the importance of assessing not only the credibility of the Plaintiff’s evidence but also the weight given to differing expert opinions on complex psychiatric and financial issues.

A significant aspect of the defence, was that the account of the Plaintiff and his injuries lacked credibility. This primarily centred around the plaintiff’s claim for psychiatric injury and loss of earnings. As such, the case sheds light on the challenges faced by the courts when evaluating psychiatric conditions, which are often subjective and difficult to prove—such as PTSD—as well as assessing financial losses, particularly where claims are speculative or based on uncertain business projections. The court’s reasoning, the weight placed on competing expert reports, and the final decision on damages provide valuable guidance for how such cases may be approached in the future.

 

The Accident: An Overview of the Incident

 

On 27 January 2019, David Finegan was involved in a road traffic accident at the junction of Millennium Way and Union Street in Lurgan. As he drove through a traffic light-controlled junction, his car was struck by a vehicle driven by Margaret McDonald. The collision was severe, and Finegan was left trapped inside his vehicle, fearing for his life. While he sustained physical injuries, it was the psychological trauma following the incident and the ensuing loss of earnings that became the primary focus of the case, resulting in a complex legal battle.

The plaintiff’s claim therefore consisted of three key elements:

  1. General damages for physical injuries,
  2. General damages for psychiatric injury and,
  3. Special damages for loss of earnings/opportunity.

 

First things First: Soft Tissue Injuries

 

Finegan sustained soft tissue injuries to his right wrist, knee, and lower right leg, which were initially treated by his GP.  The physical aspect of the case was overshadowed by the psychological claims that emerged later. The court awarded £7,500 for the physical injuries, but the focus shifted to the psychiatric injury Finegan claimed was caused by the accident.

 

Expert Evidence: The Crux of the Dispute

 

The case largely hinged on conflicting expert opinions regarding Finegan’s psychiatric condition and financial loss. Expert evidence often plays a pivotal role in personal injury cases involving psychological harm and financial claims, and the differing opinions from the two psychiatrists and the opposing financial experts presented significant challenges for the court.

There was a fundamental disagreement between the consultant psychiatrists retained by the parties: Dr Mangan, representing the plaintiff, and Dr Chada, representing the defendant. Both experts are well-known to insurance and personal injury solicitors in Northern Ireland. The court received several detailed reports from each psychiatrist, and the initial hearing had to be adjourned to allow further reports to be prepared. The court heard from both psychiatrists on two separate occasions.

 

Dr. Mangan’s Reports: Support for PTSD Diagnosis

 

Dr. Mangan’s reports concluded that Finegan suffered from PTSD, triggered both by the accident and his previous traumatic experiences during military service. Dr. Mangan’s assessment was based on multiple consultations with Finegan and a thorough examination of his medical history, which included exposure to trauma during his military career.

 

Key Findings in Dr. Mangan’s Reports:

 

  • Previous Trauma: Dr. Mangan identified Finegan’s military experiences as significant contributors to his vulnerability to PTSD.
  • Symptomatology: Dr. Mangan reported that Finegan exhibited classic PTSD symptoms, such as flashbacks, hypervigilance, and avoidance behaviours, which worsened after the accident.
  • Diagnosis: Dr. Mangan’s diagnosis linked the road traffic accident as a critical factor in reactivating Finegan’s latent PTSD symptoms.

 

Dr. Chada’s Reports: Alternative Diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder

 

In contrast, Dr. Chada provided a conflicting diagnosis. She acknowledged that Finegan had experienced psychological distress following the accident, but argued that his symptoms were more in line with an adjustment disorder than PTSD. Dr. Chada attributed Finegan’s psychological struggles primarily to the financial pressures he faced, which were exacerbated by the ongoing litigation.

 

Key Findings in Dr. Chada’s Reports:

 

  • Absence of PTSD Symptoms: Dr. Chada contended that Finegan did not exhibit the hallmark PTSD symptoms, such as re-experiencing traumatic events or hypervigilance.
  • Adjustment Disorder: She suggested that Finegan’s difficulties were more indicative of an adjustment disorder, influenced largely by his financial situation and stress related to the accident, rather than a deeply rooted psychiatric condition like PTSD.

The Court’s Handling of Conflicting Psychiatric Expert Evidence

 

The conflicting expert reports posed a challenge for the trial judge, who needed to determine which diagnosis was most likely to explain Finegan’s psychological state. Furthermore, the court had to weigh conflicting evidence, inconsistencies, and whether any inconsistency represented a ‘material inconsistency.’

 

Psychiatric Injury: Weighing the Expert Evidence in Personal Injury Claims

 

  1. Preference for Dr. Mangan’s Diagnosis: Judge Colton ultimately favoured Dr. Mangan’s opinion over Dr. Chada’s, citing the thoroughness of his assessments and the consistency of his diagnosis with other medical records. Dr. Mangan had assessed Finegan on five separate occasions, and his findings were supported by other healthcare professionals involved in Finegan’s treatment.
  2. Timeliness and Consistency: The court noted that Finegan had sought medical help within six months of the accident, which was consistent with the onset of PTSD. This was an important factor in confirming the link between the accident and Finegan’s psychological condition.
  3. Dr. Chada’s Focus: The judge noted that Dr. Chada focused excessively on inconsistencies and exaggerations in Finegan’s symptoms. While the court acknowledged that Finegan had exaggerated his symptoms in his PIP application for financial gain, it felt that Dr. Chada placed too much emphasis on the financial pressures Finegan was experiencing, which seemed to overshadow the evidence of a deeper psychological injury. While the court accepted that financial stress contributed to Finegan’s condition, it was not considered the primary cause of his PTSD.

 

Awards for Psychiatric Damage in Northern Ireland

 

Insurance and Personal Injury practitioners will appreciate that there exist Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Claims in Northern Ireland.  In cases involving psychiatric damage, the severity of the injury typically dictates the level of compensation. Key factors include the impact of the injury on daily life, work, relationships, treatment progress, and prognosis. The compensation ranges for psychiatric damage are as follows:

 

  • Severe Psychiatric Damage:
    • Significant problems across various factors with a poor prognosis.
    • Compensation: £100,000 – £250,000.
  • Moderately Severe Psychiatric Damage:
    • Significant issues but with a more optimistic prognosis than severe damage.
    • Compensation: £60,000 – £150,000.
  • Moderate Psychiatric Damage:
    • Issues present, but marked improvement by trial with a good prognosis.
    • Compensation: £15,000 – £60,000.
  • Minor Psychiatric Damage (including adjustment disorders):
    • Compensation for personal injury claims based on the length of disability and impact on daily activities or sleep:
      • Full recovery within 12 months: Up to £10,000.
      • Full recovery within 12-24 months: Up to £20,000.
      • Minor effects: Up to £20,000.

 

Appropriate Diagnosis and Assessment of General Damages for Personal Injury Claims involving Psychiatric Injury

 

The judge emphasised that, while the diagnosis is important, the more significant factor in assessing damages in personal injury  claims is the impact the condition has had on the plaintiff’s daily functioning and lifestyle. Finegan’s ability to work had been notably affected, though he sought medical help, which was beneficial. While he remained vulnerable to future setbacks, the judge believed that resolving the case should lead to improvement. The psychiatric damage suffered by Finegan was considered moderately severe, regardless of whether it was diagnosed as PTSD or general psychiatric injury. As a result, the judge awarded £65,000 in damages for Finegan’s psychiatric injury.

 

Financial Loss and Loss of Earnings in Personal Injury Claims: Conflicting Evidence

 

The dispute over Finegan’s financial loss was equally contentious, with experts divided on the extent of his lost earnings and the future potential of his consultancy business.

  1. Claim for Financial Loss and Loss of Opportunity: Finegan claimed that the accident had prevented him from progressing his consultancy business, David Finegan Consulting Limited, which had been focused on advising businesses tendering for high-value public and private sector contracts. He was also developing a subscription-based online business model for training and consultancy services. However, after the accident, these plans stalled, and Finegan argued that the crash severely affected his ability to develop the business and maintain his income. At the time of the accident, he had already made progress on developing this business model and sought compensation for the loss of this opportunity, supported by expert testimony from Mr David Vincent, who estimated a potential loss of income between £544,171 and £824,728 based on the likelihood of success in the digital business.
  2. Loss of Earnings: The plaintiff’s evidence showed that, prior to the accident, his income had already begun to decline due to personal circumstances, particularly his role in caring for his seriously ill brother. His consultancy earnings had dropped from £70,000-£79,000 per year between 2015 and 2017 to £52,000 in 2018. Finegan argued that, had the accident not occurred, his earnings would have remained at or near the 2017 level.

 

Conflicting Financial Expert Opinions

 

The plaintiff’s expert, ASM Accountants, calculated a total loss of earnings from 2019 to retirement (age 68) at £210,396, including both past and future losses, as well as therapy costs. However, the defendant’s expert, Harbinson Mulholland, disputed this claim, proposing a more modest loss range based on a 12-24 month period, suggesting a maximum loss of £102,305.

 

Key Disputes in Financial Evidence:

 

  • Speculative Business Loss: The defence argued that the plaintiff’s claims about the online subscription business were speculative. They pointed out that the failure rate for new businesses, particularly digital start-ups, was high, and the predicted future income was unrealistic. The court was not persuaded by the expert testimony forecasting substantial future income from the business model, leading to a dismissal of the business loss claim.
  • Declining Income Prior to the Accident: The defence also highlighted Finegan’s pre-accident decline in earnings, which weakened his argument that his business would have performed better had the accident not occurred. Finegan’s own history of decreasing earnings, largely due to his caregiving responsibilities for his brother, was a crucial factor in undermining his claim.
  • Psychiatric Condition’s Impact on Earnings: While the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition was acknowledged, the defence questioned the extent to which it had affected his ability to work. Cross-examination of the plaintiff’s medical experts raised doubts about the degree of incapacity caused by the accident. Ultimately, the court accepted that Finegan’s condition had impacted his work but found that the loss of earnings was not as significant as the plaintiff had claimed.

 

The Court’s Decision on Financial Loss

 

The court, while recognising that Finegan had suffered from psychiatric issues and had difficulty resuming work, ultimately awarded a more conservative amount for loss of earnings. The court was not persuaded by the claim for loss of opportunity, finding the business projections speculative. In what was evidently a robust and effective cross-examination by David Ringland KC, the plaintiff’s expert accepted the high failure rate of new digital businesses and the lack of clear evidence about funding or any concrete steps toward launching the service.

Based on the actual income presented and factoring in the prior decline in earnings, the court determined the potential future earnings to be in the range of £20,000 to £25,000, awarding £67,500 for loss of earnings over a period of three years and two months (from January 2019 to April 2022).

 

Conclusion: The Role of Conflicting Expert Evidence in Personal Injury Claims

 

The Finegan v. McDonald case demonstrates how conflicting expert evidence can shape the outcome of personal injury claims, particularly in cases involving psychological harm and financial loss. The court had to carefully navigate the competing expert opinions, giving weight to the more credible and consistent reports. In the end, while the court acknowledged the impact of both the psychological injury and the plaintiff’s financial struggles, it awarded more conservative amounts for each, reflecting the realistic potential for income and the nuanced nature of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

 

MOT Test Exemptions and Credit Hire Claims in Northern Ireland: An Update

Understanding MOT Test Delays, Exemptions, and Their Impact on Credit Hire Claims in Northern Ireland

MOT test delays in Northern Ireland have presented significant challenges for motorists, particularly when it comes to credit hire claims. Factors such as issues with vehicle lifts, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased demand for MOT tests have meant that many drivers need alternative solutions for vehicle use, which has contributed to a rise in credit hire cases. To address these challenges, Temporary Exemption Certificates (TECs) have been introduced, offering temporary relief for eligible drivers.

What Are Temporary Exemption Certificates (TECs)?

BBC News on 7th March 2024 confirmed that MOT test exemptions have been extended to manage waiting times.

Temporary Exemption Certificates (TECs) allow certain motorists to legally drive their vehicles while awaiting an MOT test, as long as the vehicles are roadworthy, taxed, and insured. The extension of TECs in Northern Ireland is designed to help reduce the backlog of MOT tests and alleviate delays caused by the growing demand for vehicle inspections.

Around 107,000 private cars in Northern Ireland, usually five and seven years old, may be eligible for TECs under the latest extension. This initiative has already proven effective, reducing MOT waiting times from over 100 days in May 2024 to approximately 30 days by February 2025. The extension will last for another year, and the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) will automatically process TECs for eligible vehicles.

Main Causes of MOT Delays in Northern Ireland

Several factors have contributed to extended MOT delays in Northern Ireland:

  • Vehicle Lift Issues: In late 2019, cracks were discovered in 48 out of 55 vehicle lifts at MOT centres, severely limiting testing capacity.
  • COVID-19 Pandemic: The suspension of testing on multiple occasions during the pandemic further worsened the backlog.
  • Increased Demand: More vehicles are on the road, and customers are holding onto their older cars longer, which has led to higher demand for MOT tests.

 

How the DVA in Northern Ireland is Responding to MOT Delays

To address the MOT delays, the DVA has taken several steps, including:

  • Recruitment of Additional Examiners: More staff have been hired to increase the number of available tests.
  • Extended Testing Hours: MOT appointments are now available on Sundays and public holidays to help reduce the backlog.
  • Temporary Exemption Certificates: TECs allow some drivers to remain on the road legally while waiting for their MOT.
  • Target to Reduce Waiting Times: The DVA aims to reduce the average MOT waiting time for private cars to six weeks or less by 31 March 2025.

Credit Hire and MOT Issues in Northern Ireland

The link between MOT issues and credit hire claims has become a significant concern to Credit Hire Practitioners in Northern Ireland. Our recent article on the case of Majid Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP Zoo [2024] EWCA Civ 1479 highlighted a crucial judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal 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.

The Majid Ali Case and Its Impact on Credit Hire Claims

In the Majid Ali case, the Court of Appeal examined the balance between compensating an individual deprived of the use of their vehicle and preserving the integrity of the law concerning illegal acts, such as driving a vehicle without a valid MOT. The Court concluded that barring the claimant from recovering credit hire costs due to the absence of an MOT would be disproportionate.

The Court compared the penalty for not having an MOT — a £1,000 fine — with the claimant’s credit hire claim of over £21,000. The Court raised “immediate and troubling questions of proportionality” about refusing the claim solely on the grounds of an expired MOT certificate.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that minor traffic offences, such as failing to have a valid MOT, would not automatically prevent recovery of credit hire charges. The Court also suggested that damages could be reduced in such cases, but more serious offences (such as driving without insurance, which carry heavier criminal penalties) are likely to result in the claim failing.

How MOT Delays Affect Credit Hire Claims in Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland, MOT or a lack thereof in a Plaintiff’s damaged vehicle can call into question the entitlement of a credit hire vehicle.  An individual provided with a fully MOT’d vehicle on a credit hire basis, when their own vehicle has no valid MOT has arguably, been provided a better vehicle than their own and the principle of betterment occurs.  These arguments have become increasingly common as more drivers struggle with long wait times for MOT tests. Insurers often attempt to use the ex turpi causa defence, arguing that a motorist who drives without a valid MOT should not be entitled to recover damages in the event of a road traffic accident (RTA). However, the Majid Ali case shows that courts are more likely to consider the proportionality of denying credit hire claims for minor infringements like an expired MOT certificate.

What Does the Future Hold for MOT Testing and Credit Hire in Northern Ireland?

Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins stressed that the TEC extension will allow the DVA to manage the high demand for MOT tests until new testing facilities at Hydebank and Mallusk are up and running. The DVA has also been working to increase testing capacity at its 15 test centres by recruiting additional examiners and offering overtime.

MOT Reform and Credit Hire Claims: What’s Next?

The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) has launched a consultation to consider changes to MOT testing frequency. The consultation, which runs until 16 April 2025, is exploring whether MOT tests for some private cars, motorcycles, and light goods vehicles could be extended to every two years instead of annually. Such changes could have further implications for credit hire claims, particularly if the frequency of MOT tests is adjusted.

Conclusion: MOT Delays, TECs, and Credit Hire in Northern Ireland

The extension of Temporary Exemption Certificates (TECs) and the DVA’s ongoing efforts to improve testing capacity will help reduce MOT waiting times and ensure that Northern Ireland’s road safety standards are maintained. For credit hire claims, the Majid Ali case provides important legal clarification, reinforcing that minor traffic offences such as a lapsed MOT will not automatically prevent recovery of credit hire costs. However, more serious offences, like driving without insurance, are likely to result in a claim being denied due to the more severe criminal consequences.

For more information on MOT test exemptions and credit hire claims in Northern Ireland, visit the original article on BBC News.

How Social Media Evidence Impacts Personal Injury Cases in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

 

Social media has become an integral part of modern life, with platforms such as Facebook and Instagram now used by around 70% of the population. This widespread usage carries significant implications for personal injury cases in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, where social media evidence is increasingly utilised in legal proceedings.

 

The Growing Importance of Social Media Evidence

 

Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Strava, and TikTok offer a wealth of information that can play a crucial role in personal injury cases. Posts, photos, videos, and comments are often examined to assess the credibility of a claimant’s allegations regarding their injuries and the impact on their lifestyle. Companies such as Netwatch are commonly engaged to scrutinise a claimant’s social media presence for evidence that might suggest their injuries have been exaggerated or fabricated. For instance, a claimant who asserts they have severe physical limitations might undermine their case by posting images or videos of themselves participating in activities that contradict their claims.

Solicitors have a duty to take positive steps to ensure that their clients appreciate at an early stage of the litigation the duties of Disclosure and Discovery.   Solicitors must also advise their clients not to destroy “documents” which might possibly have to be disclosed.  This duty extends to social media posts.

 

Admissibility of Social Media Evidence in Northern Ireland

 

In Northern Ireland, any party involved in an action must disclose to the other party any documents “which are or have been in their possession, custody, or power relating to matters in question in the case or matter.”

The test for discovery is set out in the Supreme Court Practice (1999 Volume 1 at 24/2/11), which is as follows:


“Not limited to documents which should be admissible in evidence nor to those which would prove or disprove any matter in question: any documents which, it is reasonable to suppose, contain information that may enable the party (applying for discovery) either to advance their own case or to damage that of their adversary, if it is a document that may reasonably lead to an inquiry which may have either of those two consequences, must be disclosed.”


A claim that documents are confidential does not, in itself, exclude them from the obligation of disclosure. The fact that material available on a publicly-accessible part of a social media account can be used as evidence seems uncontroversial.

As Lord Goff noted in Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) [1990] AC 109 at 282:


“Once (information) has entered what is called the public domain, then as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it.”


Order 24, Rule 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (NI) 1980, which concerns an application for discovery of documents, states:


“On the hearing of an application for an order under rule 3, 7 and 8, the court, if satisfied that discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the case or matter, may dismiss or, as the case may be, adjourn the application and shall in any case refuse to make an order if it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.”


There is no doubt that documents, if relevant—such as social media posts—are discoverable. Prima facie, they constitute information that is entitled to be used.

This was evidenced in the Northern Irish case of Martin and ors Gabriele v Giambrone P/A Giambrone & Law [2013] NIQB 48, where it was held that privacy settings on a Facebook post did not affect the admissibility of evidence and the evidence was admitted.

 

Challenges with Privacy Settings

 

The issue of privacy settings on social media accounts has not been extensively addressed by Irish courts. However, in Martin v Giambrone, it was noted that users share information on platforms like Facebook at their own risk, as there is no guarantee that posts intended for friends will remain private. Hordner J, in his judgment, stated:


“Anyone who uses Facebook does so at their peril. There is no guarantee that any comments posted to be viewed by friends will only be seen by those friends. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how information can remain confidential if a Facebook user shares it with all their friends and yet no control is placed on the further dissemination of that information by those friends. No evidence was provided as to how many friends the defendant had and what their relationship was with each of them. It was certainly not suggested that those friends were restricted in any way as to how they used any information given to them by the defendant. To avoid any confusion, I do not consider that any of the friends viewing that information would necessarily have concluded that the information was confidential and could not be disclosed. I have received no evidence as to why those friends were restricted in how they can use information received from the defendant and why they would have known this information was confidential or private.”


In the United States, courts have deliberated the balance between the probative value of social media evidence and privacy rights. For example, in Spoljaric v Savarese (2020), the court allowed the discovery of social media material related to physical activities but rejected requests for Fitbit and dating website data due to privacy concerns.

 

Case Dismissals Due to Social Media Evidence

 

Social media evidence has led to the dismissal of claims in some cases. We wrote previously about Fraud in Personal Injury cases in Ireland citing the case of Danagher v Glantine Inns [2010] IEHC 214, the plaintiff’s claim of severe injuries was undermined by their Facebook activity, which included playing sports and participating in a parachute event. Similarly, in Gervin v MIB [2017] IEHC 286, the plaintiff’s claim of being unable to attend the gym was contradicted by her Facebook posts.


“Her Facebook page was put to her in cross-examination, and I am satisfied from the entries, which she admitted had been posted by her, that she had returned to the gym by 2013 at least. Her suggestion that the evidence had been obtained in breach of her privacy settings is not credible, as at the relevant time, she did not have a privacy restriction on her Facebook account.”


Conclusion

 

Social media evidence plays a pivotal role in personal injury cases, offering insights into a claimant’s lifestyle and the veracity of their claims. Both claimants and insurers must navigate this digital landscape with caution, keeping in mind the potential legal consequences. As technology continues to evolve, the role of social media in legal proceedings is expected to grow, making it a crucial factor in personal injury litigation, along with the inevitable issues concerning admissibility, privacy, and authenticity.

Defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria in Insurance Law: Applications in Workplace, Motor and Public Liability Claims.

When it comes to insurance claims, particularly in personal injury cases, the defence of volenti non fit injuria plays a significant role. Derived from Latin, the term translates to “to a willing person, injury is not done.” This legal principle is often invoked by defendants in a variety of cases, including Employers Liability, Public Liability and Motor Liability claims.  But how does this defence work in practice? In this article, we will explore the concept of volenti non fit injuria and how it might be applied in different accident scenarios, using real cases from our office.

What is Volenti Non Fit Injuria?

 

Volenti non fit injuria is a defence used in personal injury cases to argue that the Plaintiff willingly accepted the risk of injury, thus negating any liability for the defendant. This defence essentially asserts that the person who suffers harm or injury did so voluntarily and with full knowledge of the risks involved.

In order for this defence to succeed, the defendant must prove that:

  1. The plaintiff had knowledge of the risk involved in the activity or situation.
  2. The plaintiff voluntarily consented to take that risk and in doing so waives any right of action against the defendant in respect of any breach of duty of care or injury arising therefrom.

If the answer to each is in the affirmative then the wrongfulness of the Defendant’s conduct is excused and claimant is precluded from recovering damages

Employers Liability Claims

 

Workplace accidents are a common area where the defence of volenti non fit injuria (the voluntary assumption of risk) may be raised. Employers and insurance companies might invoke this defence when they believe an employee has voluntarily assumed a risk associated with their work. For example, if an employee willingly engages in a hazardous activity without proper safety equipment or training, an employer may argue that the employee accepted the risks involved.

However, it is challenging to successfully apply the defence of volenti non fit injuria in workplace accidents. Employees have a statutory right to work in a safe environment, and employers are legally required to take steps to ensure the safety of their workforce. If an accident occurs due to employer negligence—such as failing to provide adequate training or safety measures—the defence is unlikely to succeed. In such cases, the injured employee can pursue compensation for their injuries.

A recent case we handled involved a construction company working on a residential project in Belfast. At the time, the house had only been completed to the first floor level, and no scaffolding or barriers had been installed. The plaintiff, an employee, was aware that the scaffolding and barriers had not yet arrived but was eager to continue the work. Without the employer’s knowledge or permission, he began working, leading to a fall from a height of 15 feet and serious injury.

In our defence, we argued volenti non fit injuria on the grounds that the plaintiff knowingly began work without the authority to do so and voluntarily accepted the risks involved in working in unsafe conditions, without proper safety measures.

Public Liability Claims

 

Volenti non fit injuria can also play a role in public liability claims, such as slip-and-fall incidents. For example, if someone knowingly participates in an activity with inherent risks, such as attending a sports event or engaging in a dangerous recreational activity, this defence may be invoked in the event of an accident.

We represented a security management company hired to provide security services at a live music event. One of the attendees, the plaintiff, decided to crowd surf during the performance and sustained a serious head injury after colliding with a metal barrier at the front of the venue. In our defence, we argued that the plaintiff voluntarily exposed herself to the risk of injury by engaging in the inherently dangerous activity of crowd surfing.

Motor Liability Claims

 

While the defence of volenti non fit injuria is less commonly applied in motor accident claims, it can still be relevant. For example, if a driver willingly engages in dangerous behaviour, such as racing or driving under the influence of alcohol, the defendant may argue that the claimant voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. To succeed, the defendant would need to demonstrate that the claimant knowingly participated in the risky conduct.

In a recent case, we were instructed by an insurer to act on behalf of their policyholder, who chose to drive a motor vehicle intoxicated and caused a collision where the Plaintiff was a passenger in his vehicle.  Both parties were friends and had consumed alcohol, and despite being intoxicated, the defendant chose to drive all parties home. The plaintiff accepted a ride from the defendant, fully aware that the driver was under the influence. We raised volenti non fit injuria in our defence, arguing that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by accepting a lift from an intoxicated driver.

Key Considerations of Volenti Non Fit Injuria for Insurance Law Firms

 

For insurance law firms in Northern Ireland, understanding the nuances of volenti non fit injuria is essential when defending or advising clients in personal injury cases. Here are some key factors to consider:

  1. Risk Awareness and Consent: The claimant must have known and voluntarily accepted the risk involved. This is often difficult to prove, especially in cases where the individual was not fully aware of the potential danger or was under duress.

  2. Employer Duty of Care: In workplace accidents, the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe working environment is paramount. Volenti non fit injuria is unlikely to succeed if the employer was negligent in fulfilling this duty.

  3. Public Liability Considerations: In public liability claims, defendants may attempt to invoke volenti if the claimant knowingly assumed the risk. However, if negligence is present—such as failure to provide adequate warnings or safety measures—the defence is less likely to succeed.

  4. Motor Liability  Defences: While volenti can be raised in motor accident claims, it is typically unsuccessful unless the claimant was engaging in reckless behaviour that directly contributed to the injuries.

 

Conclusion

 

The defence of volenti non fit injuria is an important legal concept in personal injury claims, and its application can vary depending on the circumstances surrounding an accident. Whether the case involves a workplace accident, a public liability claim, or a motor liability claim, understanding when and how this defence can be invoked is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants. Insurance law firms in Ireland must carefully assess the facts of each case and consider all elements of risk, consent, and negligence when determining the viability of this defence.

For insurance companies, working with experienced legal counsel can ensure that claims are appropriately defended, while claimants must be aware of their rights and the challenges of countering this defence. Legal professionals play a key role in navigating the complexities of volenti non fit injuria and ensuring fair outcomes for all parties involved.

Understanding Limitation Periods for Personal Injury Claims in Ireland: Impact of Estoppel and Key Case Law

Personal injury claims in Ireland are subject to strict limitation periods, governed by the Civil Liabilities and Courts Act 2004 and the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. If you have suffered a personal injury due to someone else’s negligence, understanding these limitation periods is important. Failing to initiate a claim within the prescribed time can result in your case being dismissed. However, as illustrated in Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland [2022] IEHC 391, the application of the statute of limitations can be influenced by the conduct of the defendant, especially when the principle of estoppel is applied.

 

This article discusses the importance of limitation periods for personal injury claims in Ireland, the role of estoppel in preventing defendants from relying on the statute of limitations, and key case law such as Tsiu v. Aramark Ireland that have shaped this area of personal injury law.

 

What Are Limitation Periods for Personal Injury Claims in Ireland?

 

In Ireland, the limitation period for personal injury claims is governed by the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. Generally, you must file a personal injury claim within two years from the date of the accident or the date you become aware of the injury and the person responsible. This is known as the date of knowledge rule. If you fail to file a claim within this period, your claim may be dismissed, and you could lose the opportunity to claim compensation for your injuries.

The Civil Liabilities and Courts Act 2004 also requires that a claimant notify the responsible party of their intention to pursue a claim within one month of the accident. If you do not meet this requirement, it could jeopardise your ability to recover legal costs or even prevent the case from proceeding.

 

Key Dates in the Personal Injury Claims Process

 

When calculating the limitation period, it’s important to understand the critical dates involved in the personal injury claims process:

  • Date of the Accident or Date of Knowledge: This is when the injury occurred or when the claimant became aware of the injury and the person responsible for it.
  • Expiration of the Limitation Period: The two-year period begins from the date of the accident or the date you became aware of the injury.
  • Form A Submission to PIAB: The date you submit your claim to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB).
  • Acknowledgment and Authorisation from PIAB: Once PIAB acknowledges your claim, it may issue authorisation to proceed to court if necessary.
  • Issuing Court Proceedings: You have six months from PIAB’s authorisation to issue court proceedings.
  • Balance of the Two-Year Period: The remaining time left in the two-year limitation period for filing court proceedings.

 

What Is Estoppel and How Does It Affect Limitation Periods?

 

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from going back on a representation or assumption that has misled another party into acting to their detriment. In personal injury claims, estoppel may prevent a defendant from relying on the statute of limitations defence if their conduct misled the claimant into believing the time limit would not be enforced.

The principle of estoppel was clearly illustrated in the case of Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland, where the defendant’s conduct—including admitting liability and engaging in settlement discussions—created a reasonable expectation in the plaintiff that the limitation period would not be raised. The defendant later attempted to use the statute of limitations as a defence despite having communicated in a way that misled the claimant.

 

Key Case Law: Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland

 

In Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland, the plaintiff was injured in a work-related accident on 4 December 2013. The defendant’s insurer admitted liability in August 2015 and initiated settlement discussions. However, the claimant’s Form A to PIAB was submitted five days after the statutory deadline. Despite this, the insurer continued discussions without setting a deadline for concluding negotiations.

Later, the defendant attempted to raise the statute of limitations defence, arguing that the claim was time-barred. The key question was whether the insurer’s conduct could prevent them from relying on the statute of limitations. The High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant was estopped from raising the limitation defence due to their conduct.

 

The Role of Murphy v. Grealish in Personal Injury Claims

 

The case of Murphy v. Grealish [2009] IESC 9 established the legal precedent that defendants could be estopped from raising the statute of limitations if their conduct misled the claimant into believing that the claim would not be time-barred. In this case, the defendant’s insurer had admitted liability and engaged in settlement negotiations even after the limitation period had expired. The Supreme Court found that the insurer’s actions had misled the plaintiff into believing the limitation period was no longer an issue.

In Tsiu v. Aramark Ireland, the High Court applied the same principles from Murphy v. Grealish. The court found that the defendant’s conduct—admitting liability, engaging in settlement discussions, and requesting medical reports—had created an expectation that the limitation period would not be enforced. As a result, the defendant was estopped from raising the statute of limitations defence.

 

How Can Estoppel Impact Your Personal Injury Claim?

 

Estoppel can be a powerful tool for claimants if the defendant’s conduct has misled them into believing that the statute of limitations would not apply. If you have been negotiating with an insurer or defendant who has admitted liability or engaged in settlement discussions, and the statute of limitations is about to expire, estoppel may prevent them from using the limitation period as a defence.

If you are in a similar situation, it is important to seek legal advice promptly. An experienced solicitor can assess whether estoppel applies in your case and advise on how to proceed.

 

Conclusion: Defendants Can Be Estopped from Relying on the Statute of Limitations

 

The case of Tsiu v. Campbell Catering Ltd T/A Aramark Ireland demonstrates that defendants can be estopped from raising the statute of limitations defence if their conduct misleads the claimant into believing that the claim would not be barred by the time limit. This principle of estoppel, supported by previous case law such as Murphy v. Grealish, highlights the importance of careful conduct during settlement negotiations and communications in personal injury claims.

For Claimants: It is vital to act quickly to ensure your personal injury claim is initiated within the statutory time limits. However, you should also be aware that, in some cases, the defendant’s actions may prevent them from raising the statute of limitations as a defence.

For Defendants and Insurers: Ensure that your actions do not create a false impression regarding the statute of limitations. If you admit liability or engage in settlement discussions, do so in a way that does not mislead the claimant into believing the limitation period is not relevant.

If you have been involved in an accident in Ireland and are considering making a personal injury claim, contact a solicitor as soon as possible to discuss your case and ensure that any potential issues regarding limitation periods are addressed.