Introduction to Limitation Periods in Ireland

Limitation periods are a critical aspect of personal injury litigation in Ireland, directly impacting the rights of claimants and the exposure of defendants and insurers. The statutory framework is primarily governed by the Statute of Limitations Act 1957 (as amended) and the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which set strict deadlines for initiating personal injury claims.

The Injuries Resolution Board (IRB), formerly known as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), and the doctrine of estoppel further shape the legal landscape. Recent legislative changes, effective 4 September 2023, have introduced procedural updates that practitioners must understand to avoid claims becoming statute barred.

Statutory Limitation Periods for Personal Injury Claims

Under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, claimants generally have two years less one day from the “date of knowledge” to initiate proceedings.

Date of Knowledge Defined:

The “date of knowledge” is when the claimant knew, or reasonably ought to have known:

• They suffered a personal injury

• The significance of that injury

• The identity of the party responsible

Some Exceptions:

• Minors: The two-year time limit to make a claim starts from the date of the child’s 18th birthday.

The Role of the Injuries Resolution Board and Section 50 Suspension

Personal injury claims (excluding certain categories such as medical negligence) must first be submitted to the IRB.

Section 50 Suspension

Under Section 50 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (as amended) provides a critical mechanism for the suspension of the limitation period:

• Submitting a complete application to the IRB stops the limitation period.

• Time resumes six months after the IRB issues an authorisation.

What Constitutes a ‘Complete’ IRB Application

Legislative Changes (Effective 4 September 2023):

The Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 introduced significant changes to the application process. From 4 September 2023, only the latest IRB Application Forms are accepted. Old versions are no longer valid, and there are updated requirements for both the Solicitors Portal and the Online Application Form.

To be deemed ‘complete’ for the purposes of Section 50 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (as amended), and to benefit from the suspension of the limitation period, an application must include:

• Claimant’s Details: Full name, date of birth, and contact number (or a statement if no contact number is available).
• Residential Address: The address at which the claimant ordinarily resides.
• Personal Public Service Number (PPSN): If no PPSN has been issued, alternative identification (valid driving licence, passport, or national identity card) is required.
• Respondent Details: Name and address of the person(s) or organisation(s) considered liable (the Respondent). For motor liability claims, the respondent insurer’s address is acceptable.
• Accident/Incident Details: Date and time of the alleged accident or incident. Where appropriate, a date range may be provided if the incident occurred over a period of time.
• Circumstances of the Accident: Details of how and where the accident or incident occurred.
• Injury Description: A description of the personal injuries allegedly sustained, including the body part(s) and nature of the injury (e.g., fracture, soft tissue injury).
• Medical Report: A medical report prepared by a medical practitioner detailing the nature of the injuries.
• Signature: The application must be signed by the claimant, confirming the accuracy of all provided information.

Important Note on IRB Application:

Where an application does not provide all the required information, it cannot be deemed complete for the purposes of applying to the IRB (section 11 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, as amended) or for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations (section 50).

Time will not ‘freeze’ for the purposes of limitation and will not be suspended until a complete application is received and acknowledged by the IRB.

Law Society Ireland Guidance on Legislative Changes

The Law Society Litigation Committee has highlighted significant risks for practitioners following the legislative changes effective from 4 September 2023. The main concerns are as follows:

• Previous Practice:
  Under the previous regime, once the Board received a completed application, it would issue a Section 50 acknowledgment, pausing the limitation period for the duration of the assessment. If a claim was close to the limitation period, PIAB would issue a Section 50 acknowledgment and allow the medical report to be provided later.
• Current Practice:
  This is no longer the case. Now, after submitting either a Postal Application or a Solicitor Portal Application, the IRB will review the application (target review time: three working days, but this is not a statutory limit). The solicitor and/or claimant will be updated on the status of the application.
• Determination of Completeness:
  If the application is complete and valid, and all information required under Section 11 is provided (including the medical report), the application will be confirmed as complete for the purpose of acceptance by the IRB and for the purpose of the Section 50 acknowledgment. The effect will be from the date the complete application was received.

If any information is missing (including the medical report), the IRB will give 28 days to supply the missing information. If the information is not provided within this period, the IRB will close the file.

Crucially:

If missing information is subsequently provided and the application is then deemed complete and valid, the effective date for the purposes of the Section 50 acknowledgment will be the date when the last piece of missing information is provided—not the original filing date.

• Increased Risk:
  The Law Society of Ireland recommends extreme caution with claims being filed with the Board following the commencement of these changes, particularly where the limitation period is close to expiry. Practitioners must ensure that all required documentation, especially the medical report, is included at the time of filing to avoid the risk of the claim being statute barred.

The Doctrine of Estoppel and Limitation Defences

The principle of estoppel can prevent a defendant or insurer from relying on the statute of limitations as a defence if their conduct has misled the claimant into believing that the limitation period would not be enforced.

Read our previous article on the Doctrine of Estoppel and Limitation Defences in Ireland.

Requirement of an IRB Authorisation for Personal Injury Summons

Since 31 March 2005:

• Claimants must issue a Personal Injury Summons in the appropriate court.

• The summons must include all mandatory details per Section 10 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, including IRB authorisation.

Conclusion 

Limitation periods in personal injury claims in Ireland are strictly enforced. The IRB Section 50 suspension applies only to complete applications, and recent legislative changes have tightened these requirements. Practitioners must ensure compliance to avoid claims becoming statute barred or losing defences under estoppel.

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

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

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

What is Contributory Negligence?

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

For example:

• A driver injured in a road traffic accident while not wearing a seatbelt may see their compensation reduced proportionally.

• A cyclist failing to stop at a red light who collides with a car may share liability for the accident.

• An employee injured at work for failing to use provided safety equipment or follow protocols may bear some responsibility.

• A shopper who slips over a spillage that was clearly marked and cordoned off may have their claim reduced.

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

Legal Basis for Contributory Negligence in Ireland

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

The court applies a two-step approach:

1. Determine whether the defendant was negligent.

2. If negligence is established, assess whether the claimant contributed to their own harm and by what percentage.

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

Contributory Negligence from Multiple Parties

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

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

Contributory Negligence in Irish Case Law

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

• O’Connell v. Jackson: Confirmed that a claimant’s negligence reduces, but does not bar, recovery of damages.

• McGrath v. Trintech Group Plc: Reinforced that contributory negligence is proportional, even when the defendant’s negligence is more serious.

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

Comparison to Contributory Negligence in Northern Ireland

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

Author of Their Own Misfortune

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

• Evaluate claims accurately

• Reduce exposure in personal injury settlements

• Defend litigation effectively by highlighting the claimant’s role in the incident

• Ensure fair settlements that reflect actual responsibility

Common examples seen day to day by insurance professionals include:

• Failure to wear a seatbelt in road traffic accidents

• Inadequate stopping distances or inappropriate speed in multi-vehicle collisions

• Non-compliance with workplace safety procedures

• Ignoring obvious hazards in public liability claims

Criticisms of Contributory Negligence

While widely recognised, contributory negligence is not without criticisms:

• Minor claimant negligence may disproportionately reduce compensation.  For example take a pedestrian hit by a speeding car, who is deemed to be 10% at fault for not using a pedestrian crossing.   Their award has been reduced by 10%, notwithstanding the defendant’s primary responsibility.

• Determining the degree of fault is entirely subjective, which can and does lead to inconsistent awards.  Even the degree of a percentage blame can vary widely depending on judicial interpretation.  This makes negotiations difficult and can increase litigation costs where parties may avoid ‘coming to the table’ until they know the identity of the trial judge.

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

How Lacey Solicitors Supports Insurance Clients in Ireland

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

• Assess contributory negligence and multi-party liability

• Advise insurers on potential liability reductions

• Developing tailored defence strategies such as Tenders or Lodgments to reflect any contributory negligence

• Represent insurers in negotiations and litigation

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

Contact Us to Discuss a Case Involving Contributory Negligence

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

The assessment of general damages in personal injury claims is often complex, particularly when a Claimant sustains multiple injuries. The introduction of the Personal Injuries Guidelines (PIGs) in 2021 replaced the Book of Quantum and provided a standard reference for awards in Ireland.  Challenges remain however in ensuring that compensation is fair, proportionate, and reflective of all injuries, especially when assessing the uplift for multiple injuries under the Personal Injuries Guidelines or where such injuries overlap.

As outlined in McHugh v Ferol:

“The guidelines do not provide advice as to the process a court should undertake when assessing the ‘uplift’ to ensure that the Claimant is fairly and justly compensated for all the additional pain, discomfort and limitations arising from their lesser injury/injuries.”

This article seeks to provide a detailed, practice-oriented guide to the calculation of the “uplift,” that is, the additional compensation applied to a dominant injury to account for lesser, secondary injuries.

The links at the end of the article will also assist as a quick reference guide for the various cases.

Proportionality in Assessing Multiple Injuries Using the Personal Injuries Guidelines

The Personal Injuries Guidelines provide bands of general damages for specific physical and psychological injuries, offering a reference point for courts in making awards and solicitors and insurers when negotiating settlements.

The Guidelines give immensely helpful award ranges for individual injuries, but things become more complicated when an injured Claimant has several injuries. In those cases, adding the awards for each site of injury together rarely works and often leads to an inflated award, especially where the injuries overlap.

This would be unfair to the Defendant and disproportionate when compared with other awards.  The Guidelines make it clear that above all else, the key principle in assessing multiple injuries is one of proportionality.  It requires a holistic assessment of the overall impact, usually achieved by applying a global discount to reflect overlapping effects.

In Meehan v Shawcove the Court of Appeal made clear that any award must be proportionate to the maximum award in the most serious cases; that is €500,000, and it must also be proportionate in the context of other awards.

The approach, according to the Guidelines, is to;

“identify the injury and the bracket of damages within the Guidelines that best resembles the most significant of the Claimant’s injuries. The trial judge should then value that injury and thereafter uplift the value to ensure that the Claimant is fairly and justly compensated for all of the additional pain, discomfort and limitations arising from their lesser injury/injuries.”

Identifying the Dominant Injury

Case law consistently confirms that in any case the most significant of the Claimant’s injuries, known as the ‘dominant injury‘ is the starting point for damages assessment in multiple injury cases.

• Collins v Parm [2024] IECA 150 – A psychiatric injury was identified as dominant.
• Dean Keogh v Maria Byrne [2024] IEHC 19 – Coffey J. assessed the “severely displaced and angulated fracture to the shaft of the radius and ulna” as the dominant injury and classified this as being at the lower end of the second tier of the severe category. He assigned to this injury a value of €55,000 (he included in this assessment the permanence of substantial cosmetic disfigurement of the forearm by unsightly scars and a very noticeable soft tissue mass).

Assessing Secondary Injuries and a Reality Check

In a case involving multiple injuries the Court should, having first assessed the dominant injury, then look at the other injuries.

Each injury should be categorised according to the relevant Guideline bracket and thereafter a gross award should be calculated.

Once a gross award is calculated an overlap discount and reduction in value should be applied to the secondary injuries.

Finally a ‘step back‘ and ‘reality check‘ is needed to assess proportionality to ensure that the overall award for general damages is fair and reasonable to all parties and how the overall award fares when compared with other categories in the guidelines.

Lacey Solicitors Six-Step Assessment of the ‘Uplift’

Whilst various decisions can assist, courts in Ireland recognise that, although there are different ways to adjust awards, the specific method is less important than ensuring the final sum fairly reflects the total impact of multiple injuries.

Whilst a simple two stage process has been referenced in the past, the more structured six step process below has its benefits. The following approach illustrates how solicitors and insurers can apply a structured method for multiple injuries:

Step 1: Identify & Assess the Dominant Injury

• Determine the most significant injury and assign a value from the Guidelines is the first step in Assessing the uplift for multiple injuries under the Personal Injuries Guidelines.
• Consider both physical and psychological effects.
• Factor in any risk of future complications, distinguishing risk from probability.

Example: In Dean Keogh, the right forearm injury was valued at €55,000, reflecting functional impairment and potential future complications.

Step 2: Identify & Apply Guideline Values to Secondary Injuries

• Assign each lesser injury a Guidelines bracket value.
• Include all sites of injuries such as scarring, soft tissue injuries, minor psychological injuries, or other residual effects.

Example: In Collins v Parm, back and neck injuries were €15,000, dental injury €5,000, tinnitus €3,000, minor scarring €5,000.

Step 3: Apply a Discount for Overlap

• Recognise that injuries from the same incident often overlap in pain, treatment, and recovery.
• Courts generally apply a 25% to 33% discount, adjusted according to the degree of overlap.
• This ensures the uplift is proportionate and avoids over-compensation.
• Where there is no apparent “most significant” injury, the court in Collins v. Parm [2024] IECA 150 advised that a lower level of discount will apply than would be applied to the aggregated “lesser injuries” in cases where there is an apparent “most significant” injury.

Example: In Dean Keogh, secondary injuries totaling €45,000 were discounted by €15,000, resulting in a net uplift of €30,000.

Step 4: Calculate the Total Uplift for Secondary Injuries

• Total up the secondary injuries after they have been discounted.

Step 5: Calculate the Total Figure for both Dominant & Secondary Injuries

• Add the gross value for secondary injuries after discount to the initial dominant injury value.

Step 6: Conduct a “Reality Check”

• Review the total award against Guideline maxima and comparable cases when Assessing Uplift for Multiple Injuries under the Personal Injuries Guidelines.
• Ensure the sum is justifiable and consistent with awards for similarly severe injuries.
• Make further adjustments if anomalies appear.

Example: In Collins v. Parm  in valuing the Claimant’s dominant injury at €35,000, the Court of Appeal then combined the value of Claimant’s lesser injuries at €30,000, before applying a one third deduction to that figure in view of the temporal overlap. The Court of Appeal therefore totalled the Claimant’s award for general damages at €55,000, reducing the High Court award for general damages by 42%, prior to making a further undisputed discount of 15% for contributory negligence.

Practical Example of How the ‘Uplift’ Might be Calculated

Reality-check in Assessing Uplift for Multiple Injuries under the Personal Injuries Guidelines (brief)

• A ‘reality check’ of the kind already mentioned, might be looking at some injuries that, under the Guidelines, attract an award at this level to ensure proportionalty.  This was explored in Zaganczyk v John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company & Anor.

Comparison of the Uplift in Recent Multiple Injury Cases

Observation: Uplift may exceed the value of the dominant injury as outlined in our previous article only in exceptional cases, but courts always test awards against proportionality.

Lacey Solicitors Guidance to Insurers Assessing Uplift for Multiple Injuries under the Personal Injuries Guidelines

When assessing personal injury awards, practitioners should be cautious about adjusting the final figure based on proposed or unenacted amendments to the Personal Injuries Guidelines. As confirmed in Somers v The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána & Ors [2025] IEHC, proposed changes—including the previously inflation led increase of 16.7% – cannot be applied without formal legislative enactment.

Additionally, it remains essential to assess secondary injuries with appropriate discounts for overlap and to step back to review the overall award for proportionality. In Somers, after applying a one-third discount to non-dominant injuries, the Court confirmed that the resulting total award was fair and reasonable, highlighting that the final figure should only be amended where justified by evidence and proportionality principles, not by theoretical or unapproved adjustments.

Zaganczyk v John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company highlighted the importance of comparing the total award against the values of individual injury categories outlined in the Personal Injuries Guidelines. Where the overall award surpasses that of a more severe injury, this serves as a “reality check”, prompting a reassessment to ensure the final figure remains proportionate.

Conclusions and Case Law [Updated September 2025]

Following the above step-by-step guide with reference to relevant cases should assist practitioners and insurers in arriving at awards that are fair, defensible, and aligned with current practice but as always, reference should be made to the existing case law on the subject.

• Lipinski v Whelan [2022] IEHC 452

• Meehan v Shawcove Ltd & Ors [2022] IECA

• McDonnell v Upton Foods Ltd [2022] IEHC 680

• Broderick v Robinson [2023] IEHC 98

• McHugh v Ferol [2023] IEHC 132

• Power v Malone [2023] IEHC 366

• Crum v MIBI [2023] IEHC 656

• Zaganczyk v John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company & Anor [2023] IECA 223

• Wolfe v PIAB and Mater Misericordiae Hospital [2023] IECA 245

• Dean Keogh v Maria Byrne [2024] IEHC 19

• Coughlan v CGR Construction  [2024] IECA 78 

• O’Sullivan v Ryan [2024] IEHC 326

• Collins v Parm [2024] IECA 150

• Somers v The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána & Ors [2025] IEHC

Client: Tradesman
Settlement: £5600.00
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Case Type: Supermarket Trip and Fall

Overview: Tesco Accident and Personal Injury Claim in Belfast

In January, a tradesman visited Tesco in Belfast shortly after opening hours. While shopping, he tripped over boxes left on the supermarket floor during shelf-stocking. The boxes had not been cleared before the store opened to the public, creating a serious hazard.

The fall caused a number of minor injuries leading the client to pursue a Tesco accident claim in Belfast with the help of Lacey Solicitors, specialists in supermarket accident claims in Northern Ireland.

Why the Client Chose Lacey Solicitors for His Supermarket Accident Claim

After the accident, the client was left shaken and in pain. He attended the Mater Hospital in Belfast, where scans confirmed injuries to his head, wrist, chest, and neck.

Unsure of his legal rights and facing pushback from Tesco’s insurers, the client contacted Lacey Solicitors Belfast for expert legal advice. After a free consultation with Ruaidhri Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors, the firm quickly began investigating the claim.

Injuries Sustained in the Tesco Trip and Fall Accident

The client suffered a cut to the forehead and some bruising on his wrist and hand.

Tesco’s Response and Legal Dispute

Tesco admitted a breach of duty of care but claimed:

• The packaging box was visible, and the client should have avoided it.

• He was contributorily negligent, seeking a 50% reduction in compensation.

• They issued a formal “offer” intended to pressure the client with cost consequences if he refused it.

This type of formal offer is a mechanism used in England to encourage early settlements. If rejected, it can create the risk of the Plaintiff paying the defendant’s legal costs if they fail to achieve a better outcome. In essence, it is designed to place “pressure” on claimants into accepting early settlements.

Lacey Solicitors’ Response and  Legal Strategy

Lacey Solicitors clarified that the English Part 36 mechanism does not apply in Northern Ireland, rejecting Tesco’s offer outright and demanding fair compensation. Leveraging their expertise in NI personal injury law, the firm ensured the client’s claim remained strong and compliant with local law.

Settlement and Outcome

The case was successfully settled just six months after the accident. The client received compensation for pain and suffering,

This was a swift and successful resolution without the need for court proceedings.

Why This Case Matters for Supermarket Accident Claims in Northern Ireland

This case highlights:

• The importance of store safety during opening hours
• That trip and fall claims in Tesco, Lidl, Asda, and other supermarkets can succeed when hazards are left on the floor, even where they dispute liability.
• That local legal expertise matters – many insurers wrongly apply English law in Northern Ireland cases

Can I Claim If I Fall in Tesco?

If you’re wondering:

• “Can I claim if I fell in Tesco in Belfast?”
• “How much compensation for a supermarket accident in Northern Ireland?”
• “Do I need a personal injury solicitor near me to claim against Tesco?”

The answer is yes – and Lacey Solicitors Belfast can help.

Contact Lacey Solicitors Belfast for Help With Your Supermarket Trip and Fall in Northern Ireland

If you’ve suffered an accident in Tesco, Lidl, Asda, Sainsbury’s, or any other supermarket in Northern Ireland, contact our expert personal injury solicitors in Belfast.

We will:

• Assess your claim
• Gather medical and legal evidence
• Fight for the appropriate compensation you deserve

Call Lacey Solicitors Belfast today or use our Online Portal to start your claim.