When life takes an unexpected turn, whether through an accident, workplace injury or medical negligence from your healthcare provider, you need a law firm you can trust to protect your rights and secure the compensation you deserve.

At Lacey Solicitors, we are specialists in personal injury law and insurance law, serving clients across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. With offices in Belfast and Dublin, we are uniquely positioned to handle cases that cross jurisdictions.

Our reputation is built on legal expertise, client care, and results. We act for individuals and families during some of the most challenging times in their lives, providing clear guidance, strong representation, and unwavering support.

---

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors?

 

Selecting the right solicitor is one of the most important decisions you will make after an accident or dispute. Here’s why clients choose Lacey Solicitors:

• Specialist Expertise: Our insurance solicitors focus exclusively on personal injury and insurance law, meaning our knowledge is deep and up to date.

• Cross-Border Advantage: Few firms operate with equal strength in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Our offices in Belfast and Dublin allow us to manage claims seamlessly across jurisdictions.  Our dual qualfiied lawyers make us a “one stop shop” for clients across the island of Ireland.

• Proven Results: We have secured significant compensation for thousands of clients, from road traffic accident victims to families affected by medical negligence.

• Client-Centred Service: We listen, advise honestly, and act decisively. Every client is supported by a dedicated solicitor, ensuring clear communication and trust throughout the process and we are proud of our google reviews that demonstrate our commitment to client care.

• Insurance Law Specialists: Our roots lie in insurance and we act for a number of insurers across ireland.  We combine our defence insight with a passion for securing justice for innocent victims. We believe that cross sector collaboration between insurers and clients delivers the best results.

---

Our Legal Expertise

 

We represent clients in a wide range of personal injury and insurance law cases. Below are the main areas in which we specialise.

Road Traffic Accident Claims

 

If you have been involved in a road traffic accident in Belfast, Dublin, or elsewhere, we can help you secure compensation for injuries, vehicle damage, and financial losses.

We represent:

• Drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists.

• Victims of hit-and-run accidents.

• Motorcyclists, who often suffer the most serious injuries.

Because we work across both NI and ROI jurisdictions, we are particularly well-placed to assist in cross-border accidents — for example, if your accident occurred in the Republic of Ireland but you live in Northern Ireland (or vice versa).

---

Accidents at Work

 

Employers have a duty to keep workplaces safe. Unfortunately, many fail to uphold these obligations, leading to accidents and long-term injuries. We assist clients injured by:

• Defective machinery or unsafe tools.

• Slips, trips, and falls in the workplace.

• Injuries caused by inadequate training or safety equipment.

• Manual handling and lifting accidents.

We also advise on claims for work-related stress, bullying, and other employment-related harm.

---

Slips, Trips & Falls

 

Public places should be safe for all, but inadequate maintenance or negligence can cause accidents. We represent clients injured in:

• Supermarkets and shopping centres.

• Restaurants, pubs, and hotels.

• Public footpaths, roads, and car parks.

• Private premises where owners failed to prevent hazards.

---

Medical Negligence

 

When medical professionals make mistakes, the consequences can be devastating. Our medical negligence team has the knowledge and experience to guide clients through these complex claims, including:

• Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis.

• Surgical errors.

• Negligent treatment in hospitals or GP practices.

• Birth injuries to mother or child.

• Prescription errors and medication mistakes.

We approach these cases with both legal expertise and sensitivity, ensuring clients and their families feel supported.

---

Hearing Loss & Industrial Disease

 

Personal Injury Solicitors in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland know that our citizens have long industrial traditions, and many workers are still suffering the effects. We represent clients suffering from:

• Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) caused by exposure to loud machinery.

• Asbestos-related illness (asbestosis, mesothelioma).

• Vibration White Finger (VWF) and Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS).

• Respiratory diseases caused by workplace dust or chemicals.

---

Insurance Law & Disputes

 

This is where Lacey Solicitors truly stands apart. We are not only specialists in personal injury – we are also recognised experts in insurance law.  We are proud to act for insurers, MGAs, brokers, and policyholders across Ireland, the UK, and beyond.

Your insurance company may appoint us to defend you in your time of need, whether that means protecting you after a road traffic accident that was not your fault, or supporting you as an employer facing a claim from an employee. Insurers trust us to defend their policyholders because we combine deep insurance expertise with a practical, client-focused approach.

---

Offices in Belfast & Dublin — Dual Jurisdiction Expertise

 

Most law firms operate in one jurisdiction only. Lacey Solicitors is different. With offices in both Belfast and Dublin, we can:

• Provide clients with local expertise wherever they are based.

• Handle claims arising in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.

• Represent clients in cross-border cases, where an accident or dispute involves both jurisdictions.

• Advise on differences between Northern Irish, Irish, and EU law as they apply to personal injury and insurance disputes.

Bearing in mind the size of the island of Ireland, for many clients – particularly those who commute, travel, or work across the border – this dual presence is invaluable.

---

Frequently Asked Questions for Personal Injury Solicitors in Northern Ireland & Ireland

 

How long does a personal injury claim take in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland?

We will use our best efforts to progress your matter as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is difficult to accurately predict how long a legal matter will take to resolve. Progress is often dependent on the response times and cooperation of all parties involved.

In Northern Ireland, most uncomplicated cases resolve within 6 to 12 months. However, more complicated personal injury claims may take longer to conclude. This depends on a number of factors including:

• The seriousness and duration of your injury;
• Whether liability is admitted early;

In the Republic of Ireland our speed is determined by the Circuit that we issue proceedings in, how quickly your claim is processed by the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) and whether formal legal proceedings become necessary.

The IRB is an independent statutory body in the Republic of Ireland that assesses compensation for personal injuries arising from public liability, workplace accidents, or motor claims.

Do you offer “no win, no fee” arrangements?

Unlike England and Wales, Personal Injury solicitors in Northern Ireland cannot legally offer no win, no fee agreements.  Any solicitor in NI doing so is breaking the law.

At Lacey Solicitors, we ensure everyone has fair access to justice. Our transparent fee options include Legal Aid or legal expenses insurance, so you only pay a small premium if a claim is unsuccessful.

Book a free consultation to discuss the best option for your case.

What evidence do I need for a claim?

Accident reports, medical records, witness statements, and photographs are all helpful. Don’t worry if you don’t have everything – we can obtain much of the evidence on your behalf.

---

Contact Lacey Solicitors – Personal Injury Solicitors Northern Ireland & Dublin

 

If you or a loved one have experienced an accident, injury, or insurance dispute, you don’t have to face it alone. Lacey Solicitors provides expert legal advice and works tirelessly to secure the compensation you deserve.

Belfast Office

3rd Floor, 18–22 Hill Street, Cathedral Quarter, Belfast, BT1 2LA

Dublin Office

Ormond Building, 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7, D07 EE37

Phone:+44 (0) 28 90 896540 (Belfast) | +353 1 5134375 (Dublin)
Email:info@laceysolicitors.com
Website: www.laceysolicitors.com

Take the first step today with a free, confidential consultation. At Lacey Solicitors, your case is our priority.

Getting rear-ended is no joke. It can damage your vehicle, cause neck injuries, and ruins your entire day. Worse still: what if you get hit by an uninsured driver and are left in pain, debt, and without transportation? Lacey Solicitors in Belfast advises.

Has another vehicle ploughed into the back of your car while you were waiting in traffic? Has the car accident left you out of pocket through general damages to your vehicle and personal injuries such as whiplash or back pain? Seeking legal advice after a rear-ended road traffic accident is simple with Lacey solicitors, Belfast.

 

How Many Road Traffic Accidents Per Year in Northern Ireland?

 

Rear end collisions make up a large portion of car accidents per year in Northern Ireland. Infrastructure NI estimates that one person loses their lives on the country’s roads every week. Northern Ireland has several small and single track rural roads. These come with blind corners, hidden dips, and car accidents caused by icy roads in the towns and villages where Belfast’s gritters do not reach.

 

Car Accident Statistics for Rear End Collisions

 

Car accident statistics related to rear end collisions show some worrying facts. Almost a third of all car accidents are rear end crashes. Reasons for this include tailgating, brake checking, unexpected traffic, distractions, and even simple bad weather.

 

Can Rear End Collisions Become Fatal Car Accidents?

 

Studies in the US have revealed that about 7.5 % of all rear-end collisions prove to be fatal car accidents. A rear end collision while waiting at traffic lights or a shunt while reversing in a parking lot is one thing, but a high speed rear end smash can be deadly – particularly for your back seat passengers.

 

What if you are Hit by an Uninsured Driver?

 

If you are rear-ended by an uninsured driver in Northern Ireland, then you should still make a police report recording your accident. Drivers caught driving without insurance face hefty fines and can lose their license.

At Lacey Solicitors in Belfast, our vast experience tells us that uninsured drivers involved in rear end collisions or other road traffic accidents are less likely to remain at the scene. Gather what details you can. You can later make a claim through the Motor Insurance Bureau. This process is long and complex, but you could be reimbursed for your trouble. Of course, the best way to negotiate the MIB system after being hit by an uninsured driver is to hire a car accident lawyer.

 

What to do When You Get Rear Ended?

 

If you have been rear-ended, then take the following steps:

• Ensure you and your passengers are safe.
• Exchange insurance details with the person who rear ended you. If they do not stop, try to take note of their registration plate, make, and model of the car.
• Ensure anyone who is hurt seeks medical attention, call emergency services to the scene of the car accident if you have to.
• Gather witness contact details, particularly from anyone who has a dash cam. You can also check local businesses and homes for doorbell camera and CCTV footage.
• Have your car removed from the road.
• Report the rear end collision to the police.
• Speak to Lacey Solicitors to discuss your compensation claim after the accident.

Rear Ended? Our Car Accident Lawyer’s Office in Belfast Can Help

 

Whether a rear end collision leaves you with a neck injury or whether you are hospitalised in a pile up on the motorway, a personal injury lawyer can help you negotiate compensation for your injuries. Finding a specialist personal injury lawyer with experience in car accidents is the wisest way to protect your legal interests. Contact Lacey Solicitors, a Belfast based car accident lawyers and personal injury specialists near you.

 

 

Expert claims lawyers will categorise compensation awards into general damages and special damages. Understanding the difference can help you make a stronger claim.   Gathering key evidence for both will help you secure the correct level of compensation in your whiplash injury claim.

If you suffer from a jolt to the neck during a road traffic accident in Northern Ireland, then you are familiar with the pain, discomfort, and nauseating feelings associated with damage to your spinal cord.

Whiplash injuries after a road traffic accident are commonly easy to recover from, but once in a while this injury can change your whole life. Damage to your spine, neck, and back could be permanent for the unlucky few.

Pursuing a compensation claim for whiplash is the best recourse to ensure your medical expenses are paid for. However, there are other types of expenses – and damages – associated with bringing your claim.

 

Frequency of Whiplash Injuries in Northern Ireland Causes Concern

 

From Ballyclare to Carrickfergus, whiplash injuries are a common encounter. The cause? Road Traffic Accidents (RTAs). Between 2023-24 there were a worrying 7,833 injuries sustained while travelling on Northern Irish roads. The UK government’s synopsis of whiplash symptoms and whiplash treatment record 250,000 insurance claims are made annually within the UK for this health condition.

 

What are General Damages for Car Accident Compensation Claims?

 

General damages compensate you for the physical and psychological impact of your injury. In Northern Ireland, it is your responsibility to prove the nature and severity of your whiplash injury. Courts will consider:

• Medical evidence from your GP, consultant, or physiotherapist
• Duration and severity of symptoms
• Impact on daily life, including work, hobbies, and personal relationships
• Psychological effects such as anxiety, stress, or depression

The more unfortunate, severe and long-lasting your injury, the higher the general damages awarded. These damages are designed to reflect your pain, suffering, and loss of amenity rather than financial losses.

 

What are Special Damages in Whiplash Cases in Northern Ireland?

 

In Northern Ireland you may also bring a compensation claim for the special damages caused by whiplash. Special damages refer to any expenses that have left you out of pocket due to your injury.

Special Damages Include:

•       Medical and Rehabilitation costs
•       Travel costs to and from appointments
•       Loss of earnings due to whiplash injuries
•       Household care or additional care costs due to whiplash injuries
•       Any other costs surrounding your injury

It is essential to keep receipts, invoices, and records of any losses to support your claim. A personal injury solicitor can help calculate these damages accurately and ensure you are reimbursed for all costs.

 

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors for Your Whiplash Claim?

 

To ensure your claim is handled accurately and fairly, you need a solicitor with experience in personal injury claims in Northern Ireland. Lacey Solicitors specialise in road traffic accidents, whiplash claims, and personal injury matters. Our team will:

• Assess your injury and guide you on your potential claim
• Gather all necessary evidence for general and special damages
• Represent you professionally in negotiations or court

If you or a loved one has suffered a whiplash injury, don’t wait. Contact Lacey Solicitors in Belfast for a free consultation to discuss your whiplash compensation claim. We aim to help you recover what is fair and appropriate for your circumstances, covering both your pain and suffering and any financial losses.

 

 

 

In our modern and increasingly digital world, personal data is constantly being collected, stored, and shared. Whether it’s your employer, the NHS, a local authority, a financial institution, or an online retailer — you have the right to expect that your private information will be handled responsibly and securely.

When this doesn’t happen, and your personal information is misused, lost, or unlawfully accessed, you may be entitled to compensation for a data breach under the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

At Lacey Solicitors, with offices in Belfast and Dublin, we help clients across Northern Ireland recover damages for data protection failures — including sensitive NHS data breaches, employer misconduct, email leaks, and cyber-related incidents.

---

What Is a Data Breach?

 

A data breach occurs when your personal or sensitive information is accessed, shared, destroyed, lost, or altered without your permission. Examples include:

• Emails or letters sent to the wrong recipient

• Your medical records accessed or shared without consent

• Hacking or cyberattacks on organisations holding your data

• Lost or stolen USBs, files or devices containing your information

• Former employers mishandling your HR or disciplinary records

---

Who Can Make a Data Breach Claim in Northern Ireland?

 

You can make a claim if:

• You are an individual who has had personal or sensitive data breached

• You’ve suffered emotional distress, financial loss, or reputational harm

• The breach occurred due to the failings of a Data Controller or Data Processor, such as an employer, public body, school, GP practice, or hospital

 

We’ve helped clients across Belfast, Antrim, Newtownabbey, and surrounding areas claim against:

• The NHS and Trusts

• Local councils and public sector bodies

• Law firms and estate agents

• Schools and universities

• Large private employers

---

How Our Data Breach Solicitors in Belfast Handle Your Claim

 

We follow a clear, proven five-step process to handle your case effectively:

1. Consultation

We start with a confidential consultation to understand the nature and impact of the breach on your life. Whether the breach was recent or you only just discovered it, we will listen and advise.

2. Document Review

We gather and review all relevant evidence including breach notifications, correspondence, screenshots, or financial records that show the impact of the breach.

3. Legal Advice

We issue a Letter of Advice outlining:

• The legal basis for your claim

• The strength of your case

• Options for resolving the matter either informally or through the courts

4. Seeking Resolution

In many cases, we can resolve matters by negotiating with the party at fault. This could involve correspondence with their legal team or insurer, seeking a compensation settlement without the need for formal litigation.

5. Legal Proceedings

If a resolution is not reached, our data breach solicitors will discuss issuing proceedings in the County Court or High Court in Northern Ireland. We guide you throughout, from issuing the claim to attending court if required.

---

What Can I Claim For After a Data Breach?

 

Under UK law, you may be entitled to claim compensation for:

• Emotional distress (stress, anxiety, upset, embarrassment)

• Loss of control over your personal information

• Actual financial loss (e.g. if your bank account was accessed or your credit score affected)

• Time and inconvenience spent dealing with the fallout

There is no requirement to prove a financial loss in order to claim — emotional harm alone may be enough.

---

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors in Belfast?

 

• We are experienced data breach solicitors based in Belfast city centre

• We have advised on cases involving NHS Trusts, Police Forces and UK Governments as well as financial institutions

• We handle claims with sensitivity, professionalism, and discretion

• We offer clear legal advice, transparent fees, and a no-obligation initial consultation

---

Is There a Time Limit to Bring a Claim?

 

Yes. In most cases, you must bring your data protection claim within six years of the breach (or one year if it involves a public body and your rights under the Human Rights Act 1998). It’s always best to seek legal advice as early as possible.

---

Get Help with a Data Protection Claim in Belfast Today

 

If you believe your personal information has been mishandled, leaked, or misused, don’t delay in seeking legal advice. At Lacey Solicitors in Belfast, our dedicated data protection team is here to help you understand your rights and take action. We offer clear, confidential guidance and will support you in pursuing the compensation you are entitled to. Contact our Belfast office today or get in touch through our secure online enquiry form – your consultation is entirely confidential and comes with no obligation.

The Government continues to address Insurance Reform in Ireland and has now published its latest Action Plan, covering the period 2025–2029. Building on what the Government will portray as the success of the previous plan, this new programme sets out targeted legal reforms aimed at strengthening the role of the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB), continuing to monitor personal injury awards, and introducing greater structure and transparency in legal costs.

 

The plan comes barely a fortnight after Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan bowed to pressure on a plan by the Judicial Council to hike personal injury award guidelines by almost 17 per cent, confirming that he will not ask the Oireachtas to rubber stamp the judiciary’s proposed tweak to payouts.

According to Minister of State Robert Troy, “Insurance is a cornerstone of a well-functioning economy. This Action Plan is about levelling the playing field and restoring confidence for consumers and businesses alike.”

While this announcement signals a continuation of reform efforts, it also highlights renewed focus on legal costs and the IRB’s evolving remit, prompting varied responses.

---

Overview of the 2025–2029 Action Plan for Insurance Reform in Ireland

 

The Action Plan outlines a series of measures staged over 2026 and 2027, including:

Measures Planned for 2026

 

• Benchmarking Irish Personal Injury Awards
  A comparative exercise will benchmark Irish personal injury awards against those in the UK and other European jurisdictions to ensure consistency and fairness.

• Amendments to the Judicial Council Act 2019
  These amendments will adjust the review cycle of the Personal Injuries Guidelines (PIGs), mandate consultation between the Judicial Council and the IRB, and clarify the Oireachtas’s role in future guideline reviews.

• Research into IRB Award Acceptance Rates
  The Government will examine why some IRB awards are rejected by claimants to inform future policy.

• Examination of Award Caps
  The feasibility of introducing caps on awards for certain minor or moderate injuries will be explored.

• Development of a Model for Minor Soft Tissue Injuries
  Consideration will be given to a dedicated resolution process for these common claims.

 

Measures Planned for 2027

 

• Strengthening the IRB’s Powers and Remit
  The plan proposes making mediation the default resolution process, remitting claims back to the IRB when new evidence arises (though the practicality of this remains to be seen where medical evidence from both Claimant and Defence often evolves as cases progress, and repeatedly returning claims to the Board could cause procedural delays), and allowing legal fees to be awarded in IRB-resolved claims.

• Developing New Guidelines for Legal Fees
  The Government intends to set clear rates and scales for legal fees in civil litigation, particularly personal injury cases – akin to the County Court Scale used in Northern Ireland Personal Injury Cases.

---

Legal Costs: The Final Frontier in Insurance Reform in Ireland

 

The renewed focus on legal costs reflects their status as the last major variable yet to be comprehensively addressed. Over the past four to five years, inflation in party-party legal costs has been substantial, as affirmed by decisions of County Registrars and the Legal Costs Adjudicator.

Insurers view these escalating legal fees as an urgent problem to be tackled. Once general damages were controlled through the Judicial Guidelines, it became inevitable that attention would shift to these escalating costs. The proposed reforms to legal fee structures and transparency are intended to reduce unpredictability and overall claims expenditure.

---

Strengthening the Injuries Resolution Board: A Contested Approach

 

The IRB reforms are central to the Action Plan. Expanding the Board’s powers, including default mediation, remittal of claims with new evidence, and awarding legal fees for Board-resolved claims, aim to reduce litigation and improve efficiency.

---

Responses from Claimant Advocates and Victims’ Campaigners 

 

While the Government emphasises transparency and efficiency, victims’ campaigners warn that the reforms risk diminishing access to justice and pushing claimants toward self-representation in an increasingly complex legal system.

The main points raised are:

• The IRB’s increasing powers, aim to reduce litigation, but it is also to steer more claimants towards self-representation in what many Claimant Advocates will say is a govenment body set up by insurers and staffed by insurers.  Ultimately it fringes on jeapordising access to Justice.  Data from the Irish Central Bank, they say, underscores that claimants with legal representation receive substantially higher awards than those who self-represent.

• Benchmarking personal injury awards against UK and European standards risks a “race to the bottom” which undermines the integrity of our entire legal system by prioritising profit over justice.

• Whilst the goal of these reforms is “a balanced, predictable, and just system – one that protects rights while enabling a sustainable and affordable insurance market” the propose introduction of a ‘cap‘ for certain categories of damages particularly in minor/moderate personal injuries, they say, is a step too far.

• Critically, they say that the entire document refers to ‘key-stakeholders‘ repeatedly but Ireland is lacking in a unified claimant voice in policy debates, unlike advocacy groups seen in the UK such as APIL.

“The submissions highlighted recurring themes including concerns about the cost and
availability of insurance, the impact of legal fees on premiums, the challenges faced by
sectors and the need for greater transparency in pricing and claims handling. Respondents
also emphasised the importance of cultural and behavioural change, particularly in relation
to claims practices and litigation trends.”

There is no input here from a unified claimant voice on the rights of the Claimants and this, say Claimant advocates, is a problem that needs addressed.

---

Conclusion: Balancing Cost Control and Access to Justice

 

The Government’s 2025–2029 Action Plan marks an important stage in Ireland’s insurance reform journey, particularly through its focus on legal costs and the IRB. While the aim of reducing insurance premiums is clear, the impact on claimants’ access to justice, compensation levels, and legal representation must be carefully monitored.

Use our online portal to discuss the future landscape of insurance in Ireland with one of our Solicitors.

McCausland Holdings Ltd v Tesco Underwriting Ltd [2025] NICty 4, is a Belfast County Court judgment that addressed diminution in value in car accident claims.  Lacey Solicitors addressed diminution in our previous article last month and comon issues for insurers dealing with these types of claims.

This new judgment however also addresses whether both the bailee and bailor following a car accident can bring claims seperately for repairs and depreication, or does a settled claim extinguish all rights of further recourse?

This case is helpful insofar that it revisits a number of important principles namely diminution in value, and bailment, while confirming the continuing relevance of res judicata and the rule in Henderson v Henderson in the context of motor claims.

---

The Facts

 

The Plaintiff, McCausland Holdings Ltd, owned a Toyota Prius provided to a driver, Mr Hamid, under a Rent-to-Own agreement. In May 2023, the vehicle was involved in a collision with a driver insured by the Defendant, Tesco Underwriting Ltd. Mr Hamid issued proceedings for vehicle repairs, hire charges, and loss of earnings. That case settled for £5,000 “in full and final settlement of any claims on behalf of the plaintiff arising out of the accident…”

Subsequently, McCausland Holdings Ltd issued a separate action, seeking £1,000 in respect of diminution in market value of the vehicle. The Defendant sought to strike out the new action.

---

Bailor and Bailee: Who Can Sue?

 

The court reaffirmed the principle from The Winkfield [1902] P 42 and Armstead v RSA [2024] UKSC 6 that both bailor and bailee may have rights to claim, but double recovery is impermissible:

“A bailee in possession of property can claim damages from a stranger whose negligence results in the loss of, or physical damage, to the property.” [para 8]

District Judge Logue confirmed:

“There existed a bailor/bailee relationship between Mr Hamid and McCausland Limited… The possession of the subject vehicle was for a specific purpose and with the permission of the legal owner.”

Quoting the Supreme Court in Armstead, she further noted:

“The bailor and bailee may each be entitled to sue for loss of or damage to property. The only restriction is that there cannot be double recovery… A wrongdoer who has already paid compensation to the bailee… has an answer to such a claim by the bailor.”

---

Diminution in Value in Car Accident Claims or Depreciation: Two Sides of the Same Coin

 

A question for the court was whether depreciation following repairs was a distinct loss from the cost of repair, and therefore separately recoverable?  The Court came to the determination that both are merely different methods of quantifying diminution in value.

Citing Coles v Hetherton [2013] EWCA Civ 1704, the Court emphasised:

“The proper measure of [damage] is the diminution in value… This follows the general principle in awarding damages, ie that of restitution… If the chattel can be economically repaired, the claimant is entitled to have it repaired… although the claimant is not obliged to repair… to recover the direct loss suffered.”

And crucially:

“Depreciation is not a separate distinct loss, it is part of the measure of the direct loss, i.e., the overall diminution in value arising from the damage caused.”

“The cost of repairs and depreciation are elements of diminution in value and do not represent different losses – they are both measures of the same direct loss.”

---

Res Judicata and Abuse of Process

 

The Court held that Mr Hamid’s earlier proceedings had already dealt with the diminution in value of the vehicle, notwithstanding that depreciation was not explicitly pleaded as a head of claim in the Replies to Particulars.

“In pursuing a claim for the cost of repairs Mr Hamid has already brought a claim for diminution in value of the subject vehicle setting out a claim for general damages in respect of same.”

The signed settlement agreement between Mr Hamid and Tesco Underwriting explicitly stated it was:

“In full and final settlement of any claims on behalf of the plaintiff arising out of the accident.”

Drawing from Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100, the Judge confirmed:

“The rule requires parties to bring forward their whole case… and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which might have been brought forward…”

While the Plaintiff’s counsel sought to invoke Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65 and the Article 6 ECHR right of access to justice, the Court found those arguments unpersuasive:

“There is no interference with the plaintiff’s Article 6 rights as the claim for diminution in value has already been advanced and settled.”

---

Conclusion

 

District Judge Logue’s decision to strike out the claim is a careful and thorough application of a number of important principles in litigation. It guards against duplicity of proceedings, reaffirms the position in diminution in value in car accident claims and ensures that defendants are not exposed to serial litigation by different parties for what is in truth a single harm.

“The earlier action included a claim for cost of repairs. Those costs were claimed as general damages… I find that a claim for diminution in value… has already been advanced, and the plaintiff is precluded from re-opening the claim.”

For insurance law practitioners, this case is a prime example of how established doctrines in bailment, damages and procedural fairness intersect in modern litigation involving vehicle financing arrangements.

Contact Lacey Solicitors

 

If you are an insurer or claims handler seeking expert legal advice on motor insurance claims, contact Lacey Solicitors today. Our dedicated insurance defence teams in Dublin and Belfast are here to support you with strategic litigation, claims resolution, and regulatory compliance.

In this recent decision of the High Court in Northern Ireland, Lloyd v RSA Insurance, McLaughlin J considered a claim arising from a damage-only road traffic collision.  His commentary provides sound guidance on issues such as vehicle roadworthiness, mitigation of loss, and reasonableness. Whilst liability for the collision was not in dispute, the judgment is instructive for insurers and defence solicitors managing credit hire claims Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

---

Circumstances

A parked Mercedes owned by the Plaintiff Mr Lloyd was struck by an Education Authority vehicle, was insured by RSA.

Mr Lloyd used the services of AH Assist, an Accident Management company, that provided him with the usual services following a non-fault accident i.e. replacement vehicle, storage etc.

Once the matter was litigated, the Plaintiff presented the following heads of claim;

• £12,100 for the pre-accident value of the vehicle;
• £43,122 in credit hire charges (149 days at £288 per day);
• £8,010 in storage charges (253 days).

Unsurprisingly, reasonableness and mitigation of loss were the key issues, specifically the extent of damage, i.e. whether the vehicle was beyond economic repair, and whether continued hire and storage charges were reasonable in the circumstances.

---

Considerations of the Court

 

1. Was the vehicle beyond economical repair?

The plaintiff’s motor assessor, Mr Carvill, initially estimated repair costs at just over £9,700 (including items marked “subject to confirmation”), placing the figure narrowly above 80% of the Pre-Accident Value.  On this basis, Mr Carvill was of the opinion that the vehicle was beyond economical repair.

His estimate of the repair costs was based on assumptions about whether certain items were actually damaged and would need replaced. Because his conclusion regarding the economics of any repairs relied on the total potential repair costs, any change in those assumptions could have significantly influenced the decision to proceed. Therefore, a definitive assessment of those specific repair items was essential to justify the decision not to carry out the repairs—and to support the continuation of hire charges in the meantime.

As the evidence made clear however, if that had been done, it would have established that not all of the potential repairs were necessary and that it was economically viable to repair the car.  On his own figures, the  true value of the repairs was something in the region of £6950.00 inclusive of VAT.  The significance of this reduction was that the cost of repairs was just 57% of the vehicle’s pre-accident value. On that basis, the judge found that the vehicle was in fact economically repairable using Mr Carvill’s own 80% threshold calculation, which was not challenged.

2. Was the vehicle Roadworthy?

Mr Carvill’s stated that the vehicle, at the time of inspection on 4^th January 2024, was not roadworthy due to a dislodged bumper panel, potential damage to the bumper bar and issues with the boot lid not closing.

The Plaintiff however had presented his vehicle for MOT inspection on 2nd January 2025, which was two days prior to Mr Carvill’s inspection.  The Plaintiff gave evidence that he used duct tape to secure the bumper panel.  Most importantly, the vehicle passed inspection.

The defendant’s expert, Mr Douglas, gave contrasting evidence to Mr Carvill’s: the bumper remained fixable in three out of four points, the boot operated normally, and there was no evidence of significant structural damage.

The judge considered the MOT certificate strong evidence of roadworthiness and concluded that the plaintiff had in fact failed to discharge the burden of proving otherwise.

3. What is the purpose and significance of a vehicle test certificate

The statutory framework governing the requirements for vehicle inspection and certification is contained in a combination of Part 3 Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and Motor Vehicle Testing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 [S.R.2003/303].

Article 61(2) of the 2003 Order empowers the Department to make Regulations prescribing the requirements for inspection and certification of vehicles. The current Regulations are the Motor Vehicle Testing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 [S.R.2003/303].

• Regulation 4 provides that, for the purposes of Article 61(1)(b) of the 2003 Order, the condition of the vehicle “should not be such that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person, having regard, in particular to the items described in Schedule 3.” Collectively, these are known as the “condition requirements.”
• Schedule 3 contains a list of vehicle components which must be considered during an inspection. The list includes: “wheels and hubs”; “suspension system”; “bumpers”; “wings”; “body”; and “doors, locks and hinges”, all of which feature in the list of items damaged or potentially damaged in this case.
• Regulation 12 provides for the examination by the Department of vehicles and for the issue of a test certificate, if it is found that the condition requirements and the statutory requirements are met. If they are not met, a Notice of Refusal must be issued

---

Assessment of Credit Hire and Storage

McLaughlin J took a measured view of the credit hire arrangements. He did not accept the Defendant’s submission that the key issue was whether or not the car was unroadworthy on the date the hire commenced. He did not consider that the claim was limited to such a ‘binary assessment.’

“The jurisprudence of these courts is replete with examples of cases in which the reasonableness of the fact, rate or duration of post-accident credit hire/repair arrangements has been challenged by defendants. What is also clear from the authorities is that the overriding principle against which these issues should be assessed is restitutio in integrum – ie. that compensation should be measured, as best as possible, to match the reasonably foreseeable damage which actually flowed from the accident, together with consequential losses reasonably incurred. Where a plaintiff has entered into a credit hire or credit repair arrangement, the assessment should be made by considering the matter from the perspective of the plaintiff and the reasonableness of the steps which were taken (or were not taken) by the plaintiff in the aftermath of the accident.”

Applying those principles to this case therefore, he determined that it was initially reasonable for the plaintiff to take prompt action in the aftermath of the accident and arrange a replacement hire vehicle pending an engineer’s assessment.  For reasons unknown, AH Assist supplied the vehicle to the plaintiff on 23^rd December 2023 but did not begin charging  until 2^nd January.  If hire charges had accumulated, they would have been reasonably incurred.

He did not however consider it reasonable for the plaintiff to continue the hire arrangements after this period in light of the successful MOT inspection. It was the opinion of the Department’s inspectors, on 2 January 2024 that the condition of the plaintiff’s vehicle was such that its use on a road did not “involve a danger of injury to any person.” That conclusion was reached following an examination of those parts of the car specified in Schedule 3.  As a result, the fact that the car had been certified by independent departmental inspectors as capable of being used without risk of injury to “any person”, the certificate in the judge’s view, pointed clearly to the conclusion that the car was roadworthy on that date.

Furthermore, he was not satisfied with steps taken by AH Assist after Mr Carvill’s report.  He believed that that the failure to follow up on the conditional findings of said report, particularly to confirm whether certain repairs were needed – rendered the continued hire and storage arrangements unreasonable.

“On behalf of the plaintiff, no evidence was called from a representative of AH Assist to explain the actions which it took (or did not take) following receipt of Mr Carvill’s report. Since the economic viability of conducting repairs was entirely dependent upon confirmation of whether some of the repair items identified by Mr Carvill were in fact necessary, this omission is of considerable significance to the claim. Mr Carvill’s evidence was that he was not instructed to carry out a further inspection. It is not therefore clear whether any consideration was given to this issue at all by AH Assist. I have no evidence as to whether AH Assist undertook any efforts to arrange for the car to be repaired, notwithstanding the authorisation which the plaintiff appears to have provided… The only evidence was that the hire arrangements continued until terminated unilaterally by Mr Lloyd. One obvious inference is that AH Assist simply proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the car was beyond repair and therefore continued the hire arrangements while awaiting compensation proposals from the defendant insurer, with charges mounting in the interim period. Whatever the explanation for events following receipt of Mr Carvill’s report, it is clear that the car was not repaired by AH Assist or anyone instructed by them.”

As a result, the judge limited recovery to:

• 7 days of hire charges representing time for the damage to be assessed, report to be discussed with the Plaintiff and repairs be carried out (£2,016)
• 17 days of storage charges (£510)

The claim for £43,122 in hire was therefore reduced by over 95%.

---

Repair Costs

Whilst the plaintiff had claimed for the pre-accident value of the vehicle, the Plaintiff had in fact chosen to repair the car at a private garage using second-hand parts of his own accord using his own funds. He paid £6,720 in cash, which the court accepted as the appropriate measure of loss.

---

What If Impecuniosity Had Been Pleaded?

It is worth considering whether the outcome in Lloyd v RSA Insurance would have been different had the plaintiff pleaded impecuniosity.  In McCauley v Brennan, another judgment involving credit hire claims in Northern Ireland, Keegan J awarded the full hire period of 455 days to a single mother on benefits, accepting that she had no realistic means to pay for repairs or excess charges upfront. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff acted reasonably throughout, even in the face of substantial hire costs, and placed weight on the insurer’s delays and the practical realities of her financial position.

By contrast, in Clarke v McCullough, the Court of Appeal took a stricter line, reducing the credit hire award by half because the plaintiff  who was not impecunious had the means to pay for repairs but failed to act on them. The court was unimpressed by the advice of the accident management company in that case and emphasised the need for plaintiffs to make reasonable financial choices where they have the ability to do so.

Its therefore reasonable to suggest, had impecuniosity been properly pleaded and proven in Lloyd, the court may well have  approached the extended hire period differently and assessed the reasonableness of continuing hire charges differently.

This Judgment makes it clear that had the court been asked to decide the case on the roadworthiness of the plaintiff’s vehicle alone, it would have found the Plaintiff had not discharged the burden of proof to establish the car was unroadworthy.  That said, the judgment also repeatedly stated that in this case and other cases involving credit hire claims Northern Ireland, the roadworthiness of the vehicle was not the single or decisive issue.

“Credit arrangements involving rental or repair rates which are higher than non-credit arrangements may also be reasonable on the facts of the case, particularly if the plaintiff can demonstrate impecuniosity or that it is otherwise unreasonable to expect that he/she should fund the costs of hire/repair from personal resources or make a claim under their own comprehensive insurance policy.”

---

What this means for Credit Hire Claims in Northern Ireland

This decision reaffirms several principles that will be familiar to insurers and their legal representatives:

• The existence of a valid MOT certificate is compelling evidence of roadworthiness.  In a similar vein, a failed MOT examination will be prima facie evidence that a vehicle is not roadworthy.  In all cases Defendants should proactively obtain MOT records when defending hire claims.
• Plaintiffs, and any AMCs acting on their behalf, if their terms allow, have a duty to act on conditional engineering reports and to take timely steps to investigate whether a vehicle is repairable.  It is not reasonable to continue credit hire arrangements by reason of a failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate the continuing loss and to ascertain whether the vehicle was capable of economic repair.
• Credit hire claims must be scrutinised with reference to actual needs and efforts to mitigate, not assumptions or defaults.  The court was willing to dissect day-by-day reasonableness of hire and storage.  Insurers can successfully reduce claims by showing that a reasonable plaintiff would have acted differently.

At Lacey Solicitors, we act for insurers across both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.  For more information or strategic advice on resisting inflated vehicle damage or credit hire claims, contact us using our online portal and speak with Ruaidhrí Austin, Partner in charge of Credit Hire Litigation.

 

When it comes to medical negligence claims, one of the most important legal principles is the Bolam test. This test determines whether a healthcare professional has breached their duty of care by failing to meet the standard expected of a competent practitioner.

What Is the Bolam Test?

The Bolam test originates from the landmark case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. In this case, the court held that:

“A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.”

In simpler terms, a medical professional is not considered negligent if their actions are supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if other professionals would have acted differently.

Key Elements of the Bolam Test

To apply the Bolam test, courts consider:

• Whether the medical practitioner acted in accordance with a recognised and accepted practice within the relevant field of medicine.
• Whether that practice is supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, not necessarily the majority, but one that is credible and competent.

This means that medical judgment is protected, provided it is based on sound medical reasoning and is not outside the bounds of accepted practice.

Why the Bolam Test Matters

The Bolam test is crucial because it recognises that medicine is not an exact science. Doctors often face complex decisions with no single “correct” answer but must act quickly and decisively. The test ensures that professionals are judged fairly, based on the standards of their peers, rather than with the benefit of hindsight.

It also means that a poor outcome does not automatically mean negligence. What matters is whether the care provided was reasonable and consistent with accepted medical standards at the time.

---

The Bolitho Addendum: Logical Scrutiny

The Bolam test was later refined by the House of Lords in Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] AC 232. This case introduced an important qualification:

Even if a body of medical opinion supports the doctor’s actions, the court must be satisfied that the opinion is logically defensible.

This is known as the Bolitho test, and it allows courts to reject expert medical opinion if it is deemed illogical, outdated, or indefensible. It ensures that the Bolam test is not a shield for poor or irrational medical practices.

---

Applying the Test: An Example from McGovern v Sharkey

In the Northern Ireland High Court case McGovern v James A Sharkey and Belfast Health & Social Care Trust [2014] NIQB 117, the plaintiff alleged that a delay in diagnosing and treating a retinal detachment led to permanent vision loss.

The court applied the Bolam and Bolitho principles and found:

• The treating consultant’s diagnosis and treatment plan were supported by a responsible body of medical opinion.
• The medical decisions were logically defensible, even though the outcome was poor.
• Therefore, no negligence was established.

This case highlights how the Bolam test protects medical professionals who make reasonable decisions, even in complex or uncertain clinical situations.

---

Conclusion: The Bolam Test in Medical Negligence Law

The Bolam test remains a cornerstone of clinical negligence law in the UK. It ensures that healthcare professionals are judged according to the standards of their peers, not by unrealistic expectations or hindsight.

If you believe you’ve been affected by substandard medical care, it’s essential to seek legal advice from a solicitor experienced in clinical negligence. Our team can help assess whether your case meets the legal threshold under the Bolam and Bolitho tests.  Use our online portal to discuss your case with us.