Introduction

 

The 5th edition of the Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases in Northern Ireland—commonly known as the Green Book—has now been released by the Judicial Studies Board under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Stephens. The new guidelines are effective immediately.

The Green Book provides judges, solicitors, insurers, and claimants with benchmark figures for assessing general damages in personal injury cases across Northern Ireland.

---

Updates in the 5th Edition

 

1. Inflation Adjustment Built In

• Previous editions adjusted figures to the date of publication using the Retail Price Index (RPI).

• The 5th edition instead projects forward to the midpoint of the next five years, applying RPI at its current rate.

• This ensures the guideline figures remain relevant throughout the five-year lifespan of the edition.

2. 20% Increase in Most Figures

• With the exception of extremely minor whiplash injuries, most damages brackets have been increased by around 20% compared with the 4th edition.

3. New Category – Pleural Plaques

• For the first time, the guidelines include pleural plaques, following recent legislation allowing compensation in Northern Ireland.

• Awards for asymptomatic pleural plaques are set at around £3,500.

• Where there is associated psychiatric injury or distress, the range increases to £6,000 – £17,500, depending on severity.

4. Soft Tissue Injuries

• The brackets for extremely minor soft tissue injuries remain unchanged:

  • Neck: up to £3,000

  • Back: up to £4,000

• However, the next bracket up for both neck and back injuries has changed significantly.

  • Previously: £3,000 – £15,000 (with a bottom figure specified).

  • Now: up to £18,000, with the lower limit removed.

This means judges now have wider discretion where symptoms last between several months and two years, without surgery.

---

Implications for Insurers and Claimants

 

• Removal of bottom figures: This may create greater uncertainty for insurers, as judges are not constrained by a defined starting point.

• Upward adjustments: Claimants with moderate injuries may now see higher awards, while defendants may face increased exposure in litigation and settlement negotiations.

• Consistency with inflation: The forward-looking adjustment may help avoid outdated figures but could also contribute to higher overall compensation levels.

---

Accessing the New Edition

 

The 5th edition of the Green Book is available:

• Online: via the the Judiciary NI website

• In print: from the Law Society Library

---

Conclusion on General Damages in Northern Ireland

 

The release of the 5th edition of the Green Book marks a significant update in the assessment of personal injury claims in Northern Ireland. With a general uplift of 20% in awards, the formal recognition of pleural plaques, and the removal of lower brackets for certain injuries, both claimants and insurers must be prepared for a shift in compensation outcomes.

For claimants, the guidelines provide clarity and consistency in the likely value of personal injury claims. For insurers and defence practitioners, the changes highlight the importance of early settlement strategies and careful assessment of litigation risk.

Case Overview

 

This case concerned an application by Garda Kampff for compensation following a soft tissue injury to his hand. Counsel for the applicant relied on the Book of Quantum, arguing that damages should be assessed at approximately €21,700, in line with the guideline for minor hand injuries.

However, the High Court rejected this argument, finding that the injury amounted to no more than “bruising to the hand” and awarding €5,000 in compensation.

---

High Court’s Approach to the Garda Compensation Claim

 

Although the Book of Quantum allows for minor hand injury awards up to €21,700, the Court emphasised that such a figure was disproportionate in the circumstances.

This ruling highlights two important issues:

1. Jurisdictional inefficiency – The award of €5,000 is well below the maximum €15,000 jurisdiction of the District Court. Yet, under the Garda Compensation Acts, the case had to be heard in the High Court, reflecting a need for reform in how such claims are processed.

2. Book of Quantum not binding – The High Court reiterated that under s.22 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, courts assessing personal injury claims must have regard to the Book of Quantum. However, applications under the Garda Compensation Acts are expressly excluded from this obligation (per Murphy v Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform [2015] IEHC 868). The Court may consider the Book of Quantum, but is not bound by it.

---

Principles Applied

 

In assessing damages, the Court stressed the importance of applying three core principles:

• Fairness – Awards must be fair to both the injured party and the compensator.

• Proportionality – Damages should reflect the seriousness of the injury within the overall structure of personal injury awards.

• Reasonableness & Social Conditions – Following Wirenski, courts must consider “social conditions” in the State, including the average earnings principle, when deciding appropriate levels of general damages.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that €5,000 was an appropriate and proportionate award – equivalent to more than a month’s average salary in Ireland.

---

Key Takeaways

 

• Garda Compensation claims are not strictly governed by the Book of Quantum.

• Awards must be fair, proportionate, and reasonable, having regard to both the injured party and the public interest.

• The case highlights the inefficiency of High Court hearings for relatively minor injuries, reinforcing calls for reform of the Garda Compensation Acts.

• These guiding principles may also assist parties in settlement negotiations, potentially reducing the burden on already stretched court resources.

Background

In July 2018, the Personal Injuries Commission (PIC) published its second and final report. The Commission, established in January 2017, was tasked with investigating the rising cost of insurance and the scale of personal injury claims in Ireland.

The report made clear a stark reality: general damages for soft tissue injuries, including whiplash, in the Republic of Ireland are on average 4.4 times higher than comparable awards in Northern Ireland, England and Wales.

This disparity has fuelled rising insurance premiums, placing significant pressure on consumers, small businesses, and community organisations.

---

Key Findings of the Commission

 

1. High Compensation Awards

The PIC confirmed that the elevated level of awards for relatively minor injuries has had a negative impact on businesses and individuals, driving up the cost of insurance and encouraging a culture of exaggerated and fraudulent claims.

2. Judicial Guidelines Needed

The Commission recommended that Ireland adopt a system of judicial guidelines, similar to those already in place in Northern Ireland. These guidelines would provide judges with consistent parameters for assessing general damages, helping to reduce inconsistency and excessive awards.

The upcoming Judicial Council Bill was highlighted as an opportunity to introduce such reforms, creating a framework for fairer, more predictable compensation.

3. Judicial Recalibration in Practice

The report welcomed recent judicial developments, such as Jedruch v Tesco Ireland Limited [2018 IEHC 2005], where Justice Barr recalibrated the approach to assessing general damages, taking guidance from earlier case law (Fogarty v Cox [2017] IECA 309). This shift was seen as a positive step towards consistency.

4. Standardised Medical Treatment Plans

Another key recommendation was the introduction of standard treatment plans for whiplash and soft tissue injuries, similar to models in Ontario, Sweden, and South Australia. These systems emphasise early medical intervention to reduce the duration and severity of injuries, cutting down on prolonged claims.

5. Data Recording and Monitoring

The Commission criticised the lack of reliable data within the insurance industry regarding injury claims. It called for a centralised database to track claim frequency and outcomes. While the Minister of State for Finance, Michael D’Arcy, acknowledged the need, he indicated a system would not be in place before 2019.

---

Concerns About Fraud and Exaggerated Claims

 

The report raised alarm over Ireland becoming a destination for those seeking high payouts, with some groups exploiting the system through fraudulent or exaggerated claims. This so-called “holiday compensation culture” poses a challenge to insurers and businesses alike.

The Commission recommended stronger countermeasures by the State, An Garda Síochána, and insurers.

---

Criticism of the Report

 

Not all responses to the PIC were favourable. Justice Marie Baker, then recently appointed to the Court of Appeal, questioned some conclusions. She emphasised that the principle of full compensation for negligence is deeply rooted in law, and proposed alternative reforms such as a dedicated medical negligence list in the High Court.

---

Industry Response

 

The insurance sector welcomed the report. Rachel McGovern, Director of Financial Services at Brokers Ireland, stressed that high insurance costs harm consumers and businesses alike. She noted that while fraudulent claims must be tackled, genuinely injured claimants should not be made to feel like fraudsters for pursuing legitimate compensation.

---

Conclusion

 

The 2018 Personal Injuries Commission report exposed the scale of Ireland’s whiplash claims crisis, linking disproportionately high awards to soaring insurance premiums and a growing risk of fraudulent claims.

While reforms such as judicial guidelines, better data monitoring, and standardised treatment plans are still developing, the report represents a significant step towards restoring balance and fairness in Ireland’s personal injury system.

For businesses, insurers, and claimants alike, the report offered hope of change—though as the Commission acknowledged, it will take time to rein in Ireland’s so-called “runaway claims culture.”

The Court of Appeal judgment in Platt v OBH Luxury Accommodation Limited & Anor [2017 IECA 221] provides a striking example of how exaggerated personal injury claims can collapse under scrutiny with expert use of Section 26 Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004.

The plaintiff, Mr Jason Platt, travelled to Kinsale for a Valentine’s weekend stay at the Old Bank House. He alleged that on 15 February 2009, he fell from a windowsill in his hotel room, suffering serious rib, spine, and hip injuries. He claimed chronic pain, permanent disability, and sought almost £1.5 million in compensation for special damages and future loss of earnings.

The hotel owners, however, contended that Mr Platt had thrown himself from the window after a dispute with his fiancée.

Despite presenting himself as wheelchair-dependent and incapable of ordinary activities, video surveillance later revealed Mr Platt shopping, carrying bags, and walking unaided.

---

High Court Decision

 

In the High Court, Barton J. held the defendants 60% responsible for the accident. However, the plaintiff’s dishonesty fatally undermined his case. Relying on Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, Barton J. dismissed the claim in its entirety after concluding that the plaintiff had knowingly misled the court.

---

Court of Appeal

 

On appeal, Irvine J. upheld the decision. The Court confirmed that Section 26 was enacted to ensure that false or misleading evidence in personal injury cases “would not lightly be tolerated.”

Importantly, the Court emphasised that once Section 26 applies, the entire claim must fail. This interpretation had previously been confirmed in Meehan v BKNS Curtain Walling Systems Ltd [2012] IEHC 441.

Irvine J. made clear that while courts must weigh proportionality and fairness, fraudulent claims strike at the integrity of the justice system. In this instance, the dismissal was wholly justified.

---

Section 26 Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004

 

Section 26 provides:

If a plaintiff in a personal injuries action knowingly adduces false or misleading evidence in a material respect, the court shall dismiss the plaintiff’s action unless doing so would result in injustice.

This case highlights that dishonesty on any material matter—whether injury severity, incapacity, or special damages—can lead to the dismissal of the entire action.

---

Why This Case Matters

 

• Deterrent against fraud – The judgment is a clear warning that personal injury fraud will not be tolerated in Irish courts.

• Victory for defendants and insurers – Resources can instead be directed towards compensating genuine accident victims.

• Guidance on Section 26 – Confirms that once dishonesty is proven, dismissal of the full claim is mandatory unless injustice would result.

---

Conclusion

 

The decision in Platt v OBH Luxury Accommodation Ltd is a reminder that exaggerated or fraudulent claims carry severe consequences. Plaintiffs risk losing their entire case and may face prosecution.

For defendants, insurers, and legal practitioners, this judgment strengthens the utility of Section 26 applications in challenging dishonest personal injury claims.