A significant reduction in the overall sum paid out for medical negligence claims  in Ireland has led to a drop of nearly €90 million in compensation paid by the State Claims Agency (SCA) in 2024. New data reveals that damages payments related to clinical care cases fell by more than €65.4 million, dropping to €210.5 million in 2024.

State Hospitals, the NHS and the private healthcare sector are all filled with exceptionally talented, caring professionals who dedicate their lives to providing us with invaluable care during our most vulnerable moments. These healthcare workers are often under intense pressure, balancing high caseloads and dealing with complex medical situations. Their commitment to patient care is unparalleled, and in many cases, they deliver outstanding results.  However, despite their best efforts, medical negligence can still occur. Often, factors outside an individual healthcare worker’s control, such as staffing shortages, limited funding, or overwhelming patient demand, can contribute to situations where medical care falls below the expected standard. When these unfortunate incidents happen, patients deserve to know their rights and have access to justice.

The Irish Times reports a Drop in pay-outs for medical negligence claims but what does this mean?

Total Compensation Payments in 2024

The total damages paid across all categories amounted to €286.9 million in 2024, a decrease of €89.9 million from the €376.8 million paid out in 2023. These figures, provided to Social Democrats TD Aidan Farrelly, highlight the importance of scrutinising the state’s financial outgoings, particularly in the area of medical negligence and other claims.

Medical Negligence Claims: A Major Drop in Pay-outs

The reduction in compensation for medical negligence claims is the most significant change in the 2024 data. Clinical negligence covers a wide range of cases where patients suffer due to substandard care. This includes:

• Surgical errors
• Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis
• Medication mistakes
• Birth injuries

The decline in pay-outs for medical negligence claims could have serious implications for victims seeking fair compensation for the harm they have suffered. If you or a loved one have been affected by medical negligence, consulting an experienced medical negligence solicitor firm like Lacey Solicitors Belfast and Dublin is essential for securing the compensation you deserve.

Other Claims with Increased Compensation Payments in 2024

While medical negligence claims saw a drop, other categories of claims saw notable increases, including:

1. Physical Hazards Exposure: Claims related to slips, trips, and falls rose by €4.6 million, totalling €21 million.
2. Behavioural Hazards Exposure: Claims involving violence, harassment, or abuse increased by €3.9 million, reaching €15.2 million in 2024.
3. Psychological Hazards Exposure: Cases involving wrongful death or psychological trauma rose by €3.6 million, totalling €28.3 million in pay-outs.
4. Crash/Collision Claims: Payments for collision claims involving state vehicles, such as Garda or HSE cars, increased by more than €2.2 million, amounting to €5.5 million.

Factors Behind the Fluctuating Medical Negligence Payments

The State Claims Agency points out that the mode of settlement in clinical negligence claims can vary. In some cases, pay-outs are made as a lump sum, while in others, interim payments are made over several years. This variability means that the payments in any given year do not necessarily reflect the total cost of a claim.

Several factors influence the movement in compensation amounts, including settlements in mass actions and one-off significant payments. The SCA has stated that the figures provided may not always reflect the conclusion of the claims within the year the payments were made.

Rising Liabilities for Clinical Negligence and Other Claims

Despite the drop in pay-outs, the outstanding liabilities for claims remain substantial. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), the SCA paid a total of €574 million in settlements, awards, and expenses in 2023. By the end of 2023, the outstanding liability for claims was estimated at €5.185 billion, with the total amount expected to rise further. The full liability figures for 2024 will be published in the upcoming annual report.

What Does This Mean for Victims of Medical Negligence?

For those affected by clinical negligence, it is crucial to seek expert legal advice from a qualified medical negligence solicitor. At Lacey Solicitors, we specialise in handling medical negligence claims and can guide you through the process to ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.

If you or a family member has been harmed due to medical errors, our team of experienced solicitors can help you take the necessary legal steps to seek justice and compensation. We offer free consultations, so you can get initial advice and don’t need to worry about the financial implications of pursuing your case.

Contact a Medical Negligence Solicitor at Lacey Solicitors Today

If you’ve been affected by medical negligence in Ireland, don’t delay in reaching out to a trusted medical negligence solicitor. At Lacey Solicitors, we are here to offer expert legal support and guide you through the process of claiming compensation for your injuries or suffering.  Read our Guide to Medical Negligence Claims in Northern Ireland and use our online form to contact us.

Learn More About Ruaidhri Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors

Ruaidhri Austin, Partner at Lacey Solicitors, is a highly regarded clinical negligence solicitor with a wealth of experience in handling complex claims. Ruaidhri has successfully represented numerous clients in high-profile medical malpractice cases.

To find out more about Ruaidhri’s expertise and the medical negligence cases he has worked on, visit his Partner Bio.

In a recent judgment delivered on 27th February 2025 in the case of Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd v. Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd, Mr. Justice Twomey provided a compelling commentary on the inefficiencies and financial burden caused by Ireland’s outdated discovery rules. The case sheds light on a pressing issue that has been repeatedly identified in the Irish courts – the need for immediate reform in discovery practices.

Our office last month provided our analysis on the Discovery procedure in Ireland with reference to the ongoing Conor McGregor Saga.  This week, Justice Twomey’s observations echo the sentiments of Judge Hogan in the Court of Appeal decision in Tobin v. Minister for Defence, where he stated:

“…this appeal serves to illustrate the crisis – and there really is no other word for it – now facing the courts regarding the extent of the burdens, costs, and delays imposed on litigants and the wider legal system by the discovery system as it presently operates.”

This stark assessment captures the essence of the crisis facing the Irish legal system, with discovery rules that are not only outdated but are increasingly proving to be an obstruction to justice, placing heavy financial and procedural burdens on all parties involved.

The 19th-Century Legacy of Discovery Rules

Justice Twomey’s commentary draws attention to the continuing use of discovery rules based on the 1882 case Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co, which are, he says, ill-equipped to deal with the modern challenges posed by the explosion of electronic data. He echoed the findings of the Kelly Report of 2020 namely that these rules are “completely unsuited” to an era of digital information. Despite this clear mismatch, the Irish courts are still applying these antiquated rules, leaving litigants to navigate a discovery process described as a “monster.”

The Kelly Report recommended a straightforward solution: the introduction of a new draft order to replace the existing discovery rules. Yet, despite the passage of four years since the report’s publication, these reforms remain unimplemented.

“All of this means that this Court, which is supposed to administer justice, has no choice but to apply 19^th century discovery rules that ‘obstruct’ justice.”

Financial Burden and the “Monster” of Discovery

Twomey brought the financial impact of the discovery process into sharp focus. The defendant in this case was required to search an astonishing 1.78 million documents for the purpose of discovery, which was eventually narrowed down to 81,378 potentially relevant documents. With six reviewers working at a rate of 400 documents per day, the process would take more than seven weeks. Twomey estimates that if it were just one lawyer tasked with reviewing the documents, it would take nearly an entire year of full-time work.

“This means that a person who is unlucky enough to be involved in litigation in the High Court could end up having to pay for one lawyer to work full time doing nothing else for a year for the purposes of just one aspect of the litigation, i.e. discovery.”

Justice Twomey highlighted that the cost of having one lawyer review these documents could reach €250,000, based on an estimated hourly rate of €150. If both the plaintiff and defendant had similar discovery costs, the total could climb to €500,000 for discovery alone. These figures highlight the enormous financial burden that the discovery process places on litigants, particularly in complex cases such as commercial disputes or insurance claims, where large volumes of documents are common.

The Tobin case further quantified the financial burden, showing that discovery alone can account for up to 50% of the total costs of litigation in some cases.

The Crisis of Discovery in the Legal System

The legal profession represented on the Review Group in the Kelly report unanimously recommended ‘the abolition of discovery as it is now known.’

The costs associated with discovery often represent a substantial portion of total litigation expenses, and in complex cases, these costs can spiral out of control, deterring parties from seeking legal redress altogether.

The failure to modernise the discovery process is a missed opportunity to create a more efficient and equitable justice system.  The current rules contribute to delays and cost overruns that undermine confidence in the legal system.

The Call for Discovery Reform

The Kelly Report made it clear that the Irish legal system requires an urgent overhaul of discovery rules. The proposed reforms were designed to be both practical and cost-effective, but they remain stalled, leaving the courts to continue applying a system that has been criticised for decades.

Twomey highlights that whilst the courts have no role in changing these 19^th century rules (as this is the job of the Oireachtas), it is however the role of the courts to try to improve the system for litigants wherever possible.

The Supreme Court in Tobin argued that the advantages of discovery still largely outweigh its disadvantages but the Kelly Report Review Group took a radically different view. They concluded that discovery, as it currently operates, represents a real and pressing threat to the administration of justice. The Review Group argued that it is no longer just an inefficient process but one that has grown into a “monster,” necessitating far-reaching reform to prevent further obstruction of justice.

As Justice Twomey observed, the failure to act on the Kelly Report’s recommendations is frustrating, particularly given the mounting financial and procedural costs caused by the current system. The Review Group’s call for discovery reform is not merely a suggestion for incremental change but a call for a radical overhaul of how discovery is conducted in Irish courts, recognising the significant barriers it now presents to justice.

For over 20 years, Irish courts have recognised the need for change. From Sheehy v. Government of Ireland (2002) to Thema International Fund v. HSBC (2011), various judgments have highlighted how the discovery process has become more of a hindrance than a help in delivering justice.

‘Rather than assisting the administration of justice [the discovery process] had over the years become a potential source of injustice itself’

Conclusions on Irish Discovery Reform

Justice Twomey’s commentary once again highlights the urgent need for discovery reform in Irish courts. The decision draws attention to the financial burdens imposed by the outdated rules, which were designed in a different era and no longer serve the needs of modern litigation.

The current discovery system in Ireland is not only inefficient but also detrimental to the financial well-being of those involved in litigation. The failure to implement the reforms suggested in the Kelly Report represents a missed opportunity to streamline the discovery process, reduce legal costs, and improve access to justice.

It remains for the Oireachtas to act, ensuring that the discovery process evolves in line with modern legal and technological realities. Without this change, the “monster” of discovery will continue to obstruct justice and drive up costs for all parties involved.

Insurers are likely to welcome the news that the Northern Ireland Personal Injury Discount Rate is to be set at +0.5%. The rate that it replaces had been set at -1.5%. In contrast the rate is still lower than the rate in the Irish State which stands at +1.5%.

The Government Actuary Department announced the rate following its report on the 24thSeptember 2024. The rate in Scotland has been raised from -0.75% to +0.5%.

The Discount Rate is used to determine lump sum damages awards in serious and catastrophic injury claims, where awards are made for future losses. The lump sum payments are intended to provide people with full and fair financial compensation for all expected losses and costs caused by their injuries.

Where part of a claim for future losses is settled as a cash amount, the lump sum is calculated allowing for the period over which losses and costs are expected to be met and the assumed investment return that the individual is expected to earn on the award over time. Factors taken into consideration include, the investment period, allowance for tax and investment expenses, damages inflation assumption and a notional investment portfolio.

The raise in the Discount Rate was expected, following a recent sharp rise, after a lengthy period of historically low interest rates.