Introduction

 

Following on from our previous briefing, the Supreme Court on 9th April 2024 delivered its much-anticipated decision in Delaney v PIAB, The Judicial Council of Ireland and The Attorney General. The ruling confirms that the Personal Injuries Guidelines remain valid and legally binding, even though part of the Judicial Council Act 2019 was struck down.

This judgment provides certainty for the future of personal injury compensation in Ireland and clarifies the ongoing role of PIAB.

---

Landmark decision on case ‘of systemic importance’

 

The Court ruled that Brigid Delaney had lost her appeal. The Judicial Council-approved guidelines — which significantly reduced awards for minor injuries — remain binding, and any changes to them must now come through legislation.

A seven-judge panel delivered five separate judgments, with two further judges concurring.

Presiding, Mr Justice Peter Charleton emphasised that the case would affect thousands of future personal-injury claims and “multiples of that” into the future. He described the matter as being “of systemic importance.”

---

Background to the Case

 

• On 12 April 2019, Mrs Delaney fell on a footpath in Dungarvan, suffering a minor ankle fracture.

• Under the Book of Quantum, her damages were estimated at €18,000–€34,000.

• PIAB instead applied the new Personal Injuries Guidelines, awarding €3,000.

• She challenged this in the High Court, arguing that the Guidelines were unconstitutional.

---

Issues Raised

 

The applicant claimed that:

1. Section 7(2)(g) of the Judicial Council Act 2019 was an impermissible delegation of legislative power.

2. The Act infringed judicial independence under Article 35.2.

3. The Guidelines were applied retrospectively, depriving her of vested rights.

4. Reduced awards infringed her rights to property, bodily integrity, and equality.

---

High Court Decision

 

Mr Justice Charles Meenan rejected the challenge, holding that:

• Section 90 of the 2019 Act set out adequate principles and policies.

• The Judicial Council properly followed these when drafting the Guidelines.

• Courts retained discretion to depart from the Guidelines, preserving independence.

• PIAB acted lawfully under the PIAB Act 2003.

---

Supreme Court Decision

 

The Supreme Court took a narrower approach:

• By a 5–2 majority, it held that Section 7(2)(g) of the 2019 Act was unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of legislative power.

• However, this flaw was cured by the Family Leave and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2021, which formally enacted the Guidelines into law.

• As a result, the Guidelines survived the challenge and remain binding.

• PIAB’s award of €3,000 was therefore lawful.

---

Practical Consequences

 

• Binding effect: The Guidelines are legally binding, with departures allowed only in exceptional circumstances where no reasonable proportion exists.

• Legislation required: Any future changes must be passed by the Oireachtas.

• Reviews: A statutory review every three years is required, though amendments may now be delayed.

---

Conclusion

 

The Delaney v PIAB Supreme Court decision confirms that the Personal Injuries Guidelines remain the law in Ireland. Despite striking down part of the Judicial Council Act 2019, the Supreme Court has provided certainty to claimants, defendants, insurers, and practitioners that the Guidelines will continue to govern the assessment of general damages.

Introduction

 

The forthcoming Supreme Court ruling in Delaney v PIAB, The Judicial Council of Ireland and The Attorney General is one of the most closely watched personal injury cases in Ireland. The decision, expected on 9th April, could have far-reaching implications for the Personal Injuries Guidelines, the role of PIAB, and how courts assess general damages in compensation claims.

---

Background to the Delaney Case

 

On 12th April 2019, Mrs Delaney suffered a fall on a public footpath, grazing her knee and sustaining a minor ankle fracture (an undisplaced fracture of the right lateral malleolus).

• She submitted her claim to PIAB, naming Waterford City and County Council as the respondent.
• Under the Book of Quantum, she was advised that general damages would likely fall between €18,000 and €34,000.
• However, PIAB assessed her damages at just €3,000, applying the new Personal Injuries Guidelines introduced in 2021.

This stark difference in award values led Mrs Delaney to initiate Judicial Review proceedings, arguing that PIAB had acted unlawfully by applying the Guidelines instead of the Book of Quantum.

---

Grounds of the Judicial Review

 

The applicant challenged the validity of the Guidelines on four main constitutional grounds:

1. Unconstitutional Delegation of Power – The Judicial Council Act 2019 allegedly failed to provide sufficient “principles and policies” for drafting the Guidelines, contrary to Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution.
2. Judicial Independence – It was argued that the Act infringed Article 35.2, which guarantees the independence of the judiciary.
3. Retrospective Application – The Guidelines were applied retrospectively, allegedly depriving the applicant of vested rights.
4. Disproportionality & Property Rights – The significantly lower awards were said to be irrational, disproportionate, and an infringement of constitutional rights to property, bodily integrity and equality.

---

High Court Decision by Mr Justice Meenan

 

The High Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge, finding that:

• The awarding of general damages must reflect not only the interests of plaintiffs and defendants but also broader economic and social policy considerations.
• Section 90 of the Judicial Council Act 2019 clearly set out the necessary “principles and policies”.
• The Judicial Council Committee had properly applied those principles in drafting the Guidelines.
• Some categories of injury saw increased damages, showing the Guidelines were not simply about reducing awards.
• The Committee was entitled to benchmark against awards in other jurisdictions.
• As courts retain the power to depart from the Guidelines, judicial independence was not undermined.
• Constitutional rights do not guarantee a plaintiff a fixed sum of damages, only a fair assessment under law.
• PIAB acted lawfully under the PIAB Act 2003 (as amended) in making its assessment.

---

Why This Case Matters to Insurance Defence Lawyers in Ireland

 

The Supreme Court’s forthcoming judgment will be pivotal for:

• Personal Injury Claimants – Clarifying whether awards under the Guidelines can be constitutionally sustained.
• PIAB Assessments – Confirming whether PIAB was correct to apply the Guidelines instead of the Book of Quantum.
• Irish Personal Injury Law – Determining the balance between fair compensation, judicial independence, and the State’s interest in controlling damages levels.

---

Conclusion

 

The Delaney case has become a landmark test for the Personal Injuries Guidelines in Ireland. The Supreme Court’s ruling will provide crucial clarity for solicitors, insurers, claimants, and defendants alike. Whether the Guidelines stand or are struck down, this decision will shape the future of personal injury compensation in Ireland.

 

Client: Steph C.
Settlement: £5000.00
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Case Type: Public Transport Personal Injury Claim

---

Overview: Steph’s Public Transport Accident and Personal Injury Claim

 

Steph was on a double-decker bus which was coming to a stop. At the time of this incident she was proceeding downstairs from the upper deck when the bus suddenly accelerated again.  She landed heavily onto her ankle. She had immediate pain in her ankle and was exceptionally embarrassed. She subsequently attended the Royal Victoria Hospital Emergency Department.

---

Why Steph Chose Lacey Solicitors for Her Personal Injury Claim

 

At the time of the accident, Steph approached a different law firm who specialised in criminal law.  They had a reputation in Northern Ireland as successful criminal lawyers but had little experience of personal injury or insurance law.  Unfortunately it took them a number of years to progress the matter.  They failed at any stage to arrange for a medical examination for Steph.  After almost three years they advised Steph that liability was denied and she should abandon her claim.  They closed their file.

Frustrated by the situation and unsure of her next steps, Steph’s friend recommended Lacey Solicitors’ personal injury team for legal advice. After a free, no-obligation consultation with Aisling Creegan, at Lacey Solicitors, Steph received the legal guidance she needed.  Bearing in mind the impending limitation date, Aisling carefully reviewed the details of the accident and quickly took instructions to address the initial claims checklist.

Lacey Solicitors immediately issued Letters of Claim on behalf of Steph claiming for personal injury claim against the bus company. They arranged for an expert medical reports from an orthopaedic consultant in Hillsborough.

---

The Bus Company Denies Liability 

 

The public transport company, immediately denied liability. They claimed that Steph was responsible for descending the stairs safely and that she was responsible for holding onto the rail appropriately.  They argued that the injuries sustained by Steph were due to her own carelessness.  Public transport has an essential role in the economy and community of Northern Ireland but where they cause injury, they should be held accountable.

Lacey Solicitors firmly rejected this argument and issued court proceedings on behalf of Steph.

---

Defence of Public Transport Accident Claim for Steph

 

On issuing proceedings,  Lacey Solicitors were approached by solicitors on behalf of the Bus company, who indicated that they would be maintaining a robust denial of liability in circumstances where they had an independent witness who gave no criticism of the bus driver or his driving abilities.

They indicated that they had no offer to make and would never have an offer to make.  Steph was invited to abandon her claim by the Bus company.

---

Settlement Negotiations and Legal Strategy for Public Transport Accident

 

After one month, the solicitors on behalf of the bus Company made an initial offer of £500.00 to ‘buy-off’ the case.

Our advice was to reject this offer and we advised Steph that settlement for her personal injury claim should be ten times this figure, namely £5000.00.

After a further week of negotiations case was successfully settled for £5,000 plus Steph’s legal costs without her having to attend court.

---

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors for Your Public Transport 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 public transport accidents. Our dedicated team of solicitors offers expert advice, support, and representation throughout the entire claims process.

Whether you’ve been involved in a public transport 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 public transport 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.

A woman has been awarded more than €87,000 in a nervous shock claim in Ireland after suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) upon witnessing the partly decapitated body of a motorist involved in a collision with a bus.

The plaintiff, Lisa Sheehan (36), was driving home from work in Cork on 28th January 2017 when debris from the crash struck her car, forcing her to stop. Investigating the scene, she saw a severely damaged car and bus, and glimpsed a badly disfigured body, initially mistaken for a child but later identified as the driver of the car. Despite her shock, Ms Sheehan immediately contacted emergency services and searched the surrounding area for other potential victims.

Following the incident, Ms Sheehan suffered panic attacks, flashbacks, nightmares, and severe anxiety. She sought medical treatment, was prescribed medication, attended counselling, and ultimately left her job due to ongoing psychiatric illness. She was diagnosed with moderately severe PTSD.

Ms Sheehan brought a claim against Bus Éireann and FBD Insurance, the latter providing cover for the deceased driver. While FBD admitted liability for the accident, both defendants argued that her psychiatric injuries did not constitute a recognised legal cause of action. They claimed she was a secondary victim with no close relationship to the deceased and had not witnessed the actual collision.

---

Primary vs Secondary Victims in Nervous Shock Claims

 

Under Irish and UK law, a distinction exists between primary victims—those directly involved in an accident or within the zone of danger—and secondary victims, who are passive witnesses of injury to others. Secondary victims must typically demonstrate a close tie of love or affection to the primary victim, proximity to the accident, and psychiatric injury caused by a shocking event. Key UK cases in this area include Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] and White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998].

---

High Court Judgment

 

Justice Keane noted that the law on nervous shock claims in Ireland remains unsettled but concluded that Ms Sheehan was a primary victim, as her car had been struck by debris from the crash. The court also highlighted her role as a rescuer, exposing herself to potential danger while searching the accident site, which placed her within the zone of foreseeable physical risk. This distinction set her case apart from UK rescuer claims such as White.

This nervous shock case in Ireland demonstrates the nuanced approach Irish courts take regarding primary and secondary victims in psychiatric injury claims, particularly when the plaintiff intervenes as a rescuer.

According to the Court Service, a total of 22,049 personal injury claims were filed across all Court levels in Ireland in 2018, slightly down from 22,417 the previous year.

---

Personal Injury Awards in Lower Courts

 

Despite the minor decline in filings, awards in the lower courts increased.

• District Court: Total awards rose from €3.5 million in 2017 to €4.5 million in 2018, with the average award increasing 4.5%, from €7,643 to €7,987. Maximum awards in this court can reach €15,000.

• Circuit Court: Total awards increased from €20 million to €23.6 million, with the average award rising 2.8%, from €18,488 to €19,014. The Circuit Court can award up to €60,000.

These figures highlight a modest but notable growth in compensation for less serious injuries at lower court levels.

---

Judicial Commentary

 

Former High Court President Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns observed that while the Court of Appeal had recalibrated higher-end awards, awards in lower courts remained largely unchanged.

The Personal Injuries Commission recommended establishing a Judicial Council to standardise awards for less severe injuries. Legislation to set up the Council was approved by the Dáil in July 2019.

Chief Justice Frank Clarke cautioned that decreases in awards should be considered carefully but noted that the drop in average High Court awards remains a significant factor in the ongoing discussion about compensation reform.