Uncategorised Archives - Page 2 of 3 - Lacey Solicitors | Specialist Insurance Law Firm

Medical Negligence Claims. The Difference in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

Posted on 25 June 202527 June 2025 by Maria Adams

Legal Advice on Medical Negligence Claims from Lacey Solicitors – Dual-Qualified in Belfast and Dublin

When you visit a hospital, GP, or healthcare clinic, you place your trust in medical professionals to provide safe, skilled, and compassionate care. Thankfully, that trust is well-placed in the vast majority of cases. Both our NHS and private healthcare systems are staffed by highly trained doctors, nurses, and specialists who work under intense pressure to deliver the best possible outcomes.

But when something goes wrong, and that care falls below acceptable standards — resulting in injury, illness, or loss — it may give rise to a medical negligence claim.

At Lacey Solicitors, our team of dual-qualified medical negligence solicitors in Belfast and Dublin has extensive experience handling complex claims across both jurisdictions. Whether your case involves NHS care in Northern Ireland, or a hospital in the Republic of Ireland, we are here to provide clear, confident legal advice.

What Is Medical Negligence?

Medical negligence, also known as clinical negligence, occurs when a healthcare provider fails in their duty of care and causes avoidable harm. Legally, two key elements must be proven:

Breach of Duty – The standard of care was below that expected of a reasonably competent medical professional.
Causation – This breach directly caused the patient’s injury, deterioration, or loss.

Common examples of clinical negligence include:

Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis
Surgical errors
Incorrect medication or treatment
Failure to obtain informed consent
Poor aftercare or failure to monitor post-surgery

Why Are Medical Negligence Cases So Complex?

Unlike accidents at work or road traffic collisions, clinical negligence cases are medically technical and legally challenging. A poor outcome alone is not sufficient to prove negligence. Instead, the patient must demonstrate that:

The treatment received was substandard compared to a reasonable professional standard, and
That substandard treatment caused the harm, not just the underlying condition or its progression.

This requires in-depth analysis and expert medical opinion — both of which Lacey Solicitors can arrange as part of your claim.

The Legal Standard in the UK: The Bolam and Bolitho Tests

In Northern Ireland, the courts apply the Bolam Test, which originated from the landmark 1957 case Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. Under this test:

A medical professional is not negligent if their actions are supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if other professionals disagree.

However, the Bolitho decision (1998) added an important condition: the expert opinion relied upon must also be logical and defensible. It is not enough that a group of doctors agree — their reasoning must be sound and based on best practice.

Informed Consent and Modern Patient Rights

Another critical development in medical negligence law is the emphasis on informed consent. In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015), the UK Supreme Court ruled that:

Doctors must inform patients of any material risks that a reasonable person would want to know.

This overturned older practices where doctors might withhold information under the notion of “therapeutic privilege.” Today, patient autonomy is central — and failing to obtain informed consent may itself amount to negligence.

The Irish Legal Test: The Dunne Principles

In the Republic of Ireland, the legal threshold is slightly different. The leading authority is the 1989 case Dunne v National Maternity Hospital, which states:

A medical professional is negligent if they acted in a way that no equally qualified professional would have, if exercising ordinary skill and care.

This standard was confirmed as recently as 2020 in Morrissey v HSE & Others and remains the cornerstone of Irish clinical negligence law. It sets a higher bar than NI’s Bolam/Bolitho test, making expert witness support even more essential in Irish cases.

The Role of Expert Medical Evidence

At Lacey Solicitors, we work with experienced, independent medical experts who can:

Assess whether the care fell below standard
Provide insight into whether this breach caused harm
Explain whether alternative treatment could have prevented the outcome

Their reports form the foundation of your case and are essential to success.

Time Limits: Don’t Miss the Deadline

Strict time limits apply to medical negligence claims:

Northern Ireland: You must start legal proceedings within 3 years of the date of negligence, or the date you first became aware of it.
Republic of Ireland: The limitation period is generally 2 years.

To avoid losing your right to claim, we recommend seeking legal advice as soon as possible.

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors for a Medical Negligence Claim?

With offices in Belfast and Dublin, Lacey Solicitors offers a unique cross-border service. Our dual-qualified team understands the differing laws, procedures, and court systems in both the NI and ROI — a vital advantage in medical negligence cases that involve treatment across jurisdictions.

We can help you with:

NHS and HSC Trust medical negligence claims
Private hospital treatment failures
GP misdiagnosis or delayed referral
Birth injury or paediatric claims
Cross-border or international healthcare issues

Our Approach to Medical Negligence Claims

✅ We listen carefully to your story
✅ We explain your legal options in plain English
✅ We gather the necessary medical evidence and reports
✅ We fight for fair compensation and justice in your medical negligence claim

Contact Lacey Solicitors Today

If you or a loved one has suffered due to medical negligence in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, we are here to help.

📧 Email: info@laceysolicitors.com
🌐 Website: www.laceysolicitors.com

Trust our experience. Let us help you move forward.

One Trial to Rule Them All: Threshold for Split Trials in Personal Injury Litigation in NI

Posted on 24 June 202527 June 2025 by Lacey Solicitors

Overview

In Owen McFerran v Sean O’Connor, The Chief Constable of the PSNI, and The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service ([2025] NICA 35), the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal delivered an interesting judgment on the use of split trials in personal injury litigation. The court upheld the High Court’s refusal to order a Split Trial, reinforcing the principle that such orders remain exceptional and must be justified by clear procedural or substantive advantages.

This article explores the factual background, procedural developments, and wider implications of the Court of Appeal’s decision—particularly its impact on the appetite for split trials in serious injury cases as well as the suitability of mediation.

Factual Background

The case arose from a tragic road traffic incident in January 2018. The plaintiff, Owen McFerran, then aged 21, was walking along the Moneynick Road with his girlfriend, Shannon McQuillan, when both were struck by a van driven by the first defendant, Sean O’Connor. Ms McQuillan died at the scene, and Mr McFerran sustained catastrophic brain injuries.

Earlier that night, the couple had been involved in an incident requiring ambulance and police intervention. Ms McQuillan, heavily intoxicated, had been removed from the ambulance after becoming abusive. The couple were left at a bus stop and began walking along the unlit road where the collision occurred.

Proceedings were issued against the driver, the Chief Constable of the PSNI, and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. Each defendant denied liability, and contributory negligence was pleaded against the plaintiff.

Procedural History and Appeal

Initially, Master Bell ordered a split trial, with liability to be determined first. However, this was overturned by Colton J in the High Court, who found that the complexity of the liability issues did not justify separating them from quantum.

The First Defendant appealed, arguing that the judge gave undue weight to the plaintiff’s brain injury, applied the wrong legal test, and failed to properly consider the overriding objective under Order 1 Rule 1A.

Why Split Trials in Northern Ireland May be Requested

It is common for parties in complex personal injury compensation claims to request a split trial, particularly in cases of substantial value. There may be various reasons, including:

Disputes on liability,
Complex issues relating to causation, or
The fact that quantum simply cannot be assessed for many years due to the claimant being a child or the injury being so severe that the full extent will not be known for some time.

Usually, the issue of liability is tried first. The courts in the past have been keen to accommodate this if it can be shown that a split trial would not only save time, but also costs, whilst serving the interests of those involved. Each case turns on its own facts and circumstances.

Split trials can offer practical advantages:

Shorter initial hearings: The liability phase of a split trial typically requires less court time than a full trial, making it easier to schedule and potentially bringing forward hearing dates.
Early resolution: If liability is resolved early—either through judgment or settlement—parties may avoid the need for a quantum hearing altogether.
Focused preparation: Parties can concentrate resources on the most contentious issues first, which may lead to more efficient litigation overall.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal, led by Keegan LCJ, dismissed the appeal. The court reaffirmed that split trials are exceptional and the default remains a single trial unless there is a “real and substantial advantage” in splitting.

The court found that the presence of three defendants, differing legal duties, and factual disputes made it unlikely that a liability-only trial would dispose of the case. The trial judge had properly exercised discretion, considering delay, cost, and the need for active case management.

The Waning Appetite for Split Trials in Northern Ireland

The McFerran decision reflects a broader judicial trend: the courts are increasingly reluctant to order split trials, especially in cases involving catastrophic injuries and multiple defendants. This reluctance stems from the recognition that:

Overlap of Evidence: In many cases, the evidence relevant to liability is deeply intertwined with that required to assess quantum. Splitting the trial risks duplication of effort and the need for witnesses to give evidence twice.
Cost Efficiency: The courts are guided by the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and efficiently. Separate trials can lead to increased legal costs, procedural delays, and inefficient use of court resources.
Settlement Prospects: A single, unified trial often enhances the likelihood of settlement. When all issues are on the table, parties are better positioned to evaluate risk and negotiate resolution.

A Brief Note on Mediation

It is not unreasonable for the party against whom complex legal claims had been made to maintain its entitlement to have those issues resolved by the court. That said, this case invites reflection on the role of mediation in complex personal injury litigation.

The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service Digital Modernisation Plan, launched in 2021 by Sir Declan Morgan and Naomi Long, places ADR at the heart of its Vision 2030 strategy. The NICTS portfolio of Modernisation Programmes for delivery is now known as Vision 2030 (whose oversight committee includes which includes the Lady Chief Justice, the Department of Justice Permanent Secretary and the NICTS Acting Director and our own Mr Ruaidhrí Austin, Partner), aims to expand ADR use across the justice system.

In McFerran, the need for judicial resolution on liability likely outweighed the benefits of early mediation but it must be said that the virtues and advantages of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are now almost universally recognised. Mediation has flourished in a legal landscape where civil litigation—despite decades of reform—continues to suffer from the three persistent mischiefs of expense, delay, and uncertainty.

Mediation is often promoted as a cost-effective alternative to trial however, mediation is not without its drawbacks. In high-value, multi-party cases like McFerran, the costs of mediation can be significant, and its effectiveness may be limited where parties seek judicial determination on fundamental legal issues. In such cases, mediation may prove to be procedurally complex, time-intensive, and expensive.. An unsuccessful mediation could add a very significant additional layer to the costs of the proceedings not to mention the mediator’s fees. The party who ultimately lost the litigation would likely have to bear those additional costs. Arguably, one or more of the Defendant’s could argue that it would be wholly unreasonable to expect them to accept an invitation to mediate when, depending on the outcome of the liability issues, they might never have to address the damages claim at all.

Lacey Solicitors – Insurance Lawyers

At Lacey Solicitors, we have a track record of advising and representing insurers in complex and high-value personal injury litigation across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Our firm has roots firmly in Insurance, and we understand the commercial, procedural, and reputational considerations that arise in these cases.

The decision in McFerran v O’Connor reinforces the importance of active case management and strategic litigation planning from the outset — particularly in multi-defendant claims or those involving catastrophic injury. Our team regularly advises insurers on:

The merits of requesting (or resisting) a split trial;
Liability risk analysis and evidential preparation;
ADR options, including when mediation may or may not be appropriate;
Trial strategy, cost containment, and long-term file resolution planning.

We are trusted by Irish insurers for clear, tactical advice and robust representation.

If you wish to discuss this case or another complex personal injury matter, please use our online portal.

Impecuniosity in Northern Ireland Credit Hire Claims: Legal Principles and Strategic Defence

Posted on 12 June 20252 July 2025 by Ruaidhri Austin

At Lacey Solicitors, with offices in Belfast and Dublin, we act on behalf of insurers across the entire island of Ireland in defending credit hire claims. One of the most pivotal and frequently litigated issues in these cases is impecuniosity—a claimant’s inability to pay for vehicle hire upfront without making unreasonable sacrifices.

This article explores the legal framework, key case law, and strategic considerations for insurers facing credit hire claims, where courts have developed a robust body of jurisprudence around the concept of impecuniosity.

What Is Impecuniosity?

Contrary to popular suggestion, impecuniosity is not strictly related to an individuals finances. It refers to a claimant’s inability to pay for hire charges upfront without compromising essential financial obligations. As Stephens J explained:

“An individual who is not penniless can still be impecunious, because as a question of priorities he is unable to pay car hire charges without making sacrifices he could not reasonably be expected to make.”
— South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust v Flanagan [2015] NIQB 30

This principle is central to the duty to mitigate loss. A claimant must act reasonably to reduce their losses. If they cannot afford to pay for hire in advance, using a credit hire company may be justified—but only if they can prove their financial limitations.

A stark reminder is a case dealt with by our own office where an individual with over £200,000.00 in one bank account sought to rely on impecuniosity after an accident in 2020. He was a businessman who owned two chinese restaurants and sucessfully argued that those funds were savings that he would not sacrifice in the middle of a pandemic where the future was uncertain.

Legal Framework: Pleading and Proving Impecuniosity

If an individual seeks to rely on impecunioisty, the burden of proof lies squarely with the claimant. As Underhill LJ stated:

“A claim for the cost of hire of a replacement vehicle is, strictly, a claim for expenditure incurred in mitigation of the primary loss… The burden is thus on the claimant to prove (and therefore plead) that such expenditure was reasonably incurred.”
— Zurich Insurance Plc v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357

Importantly, the Court of Appeal in Umerji also confirmed that impecuniosity is not limited to the rate of hire—it also applies to the duration of hire. If a claimant cannot afford to replace or repair their vehicle promptly, their impecuniosity may justify a longer hire period.

Burgess J reinforced this in Kerr v Toal & Others [2015] NIQB 83, stating that the issue of impecuniosity should be addressed at the outset of a claim and supported by financial documentation, including:

Bank statements (typically three months pre-accident)
Proof of income and liabilities
Details of essential outgoings

Revisiting Critical Case Law on Impecuniosity

1. McCauley v Brennan & Coulter [2017] NIQB 41

This case is a straighforward but detailed one in Northern Ireland’s credit hire jurisprudence. The plaintiff, a single mother on state benefits, incurred over £36,000 in hire charges over 445 days. The court accepted her impecuniosity and found that she had acted reasonably throughout.

Keegan J observed:

“The facts of this case are extremely significant… The insurers on behalf of the tortfeasors have taken a very long time in apportioning liability… There were systemic problems… which had nothing whatsoever to do with the plaintiff.” (para 39)

She concluded:

“It seems to me to be unsound to shift the burden for the period of hire to the plaintiff and away from the tortfeasor.” (para 41)

This case underscores that where a plaintiff is impecunious and acts reasonably, even lengthy hire periods may be recoverable.

2. Lagden v O’Connor [2004] 1 AC 1067

This House of Lords decision established that an impecunious claimant is entitled to recover the reasonable costs of credit hire, even if those exceed basic hire rates. Lord Nicholls emphasised that:

“Common fairness requires that if an innocent plaintiff cannot afford to pay car hire charges… then the damages payable… should include the reasonable costs of a credit hire company.”

3. Gilheaney v McGovern [2009] NIQB 38

The court held that the plaintiff is prima facie entitled to the rate paid, but the defendant may rebut this by showing that a cheaper, reasonable alternative was available. The court found that a student at a stressful time sitting A-levels could not reasonably be expected to conduct a market search for cheaper hire options.

4. Clarke v McCullough [2013] NICA 50

The Court of Appeal scrutinised an 11-month hire period and found that the plaintiff’s continued use of a superior replacement vehicle, despite no resolution in sight, was excessive. The case highlights the importance of proportionality and ongoing reasonableness.

5. Kelly v Mackle [2009] NIQB 39

The plaintiff, a taxi driver, hired a vehicle at £227/day while earning only £300/week. The court found this to be “economic folly” and reduced the recoverable amount accordingly.

The Role of Basic Hire Rate (BHR) Evidence

In McBride v UK Insurance Ltd & Others [2017] EWCA Civ 144, the English Court of Appeal accepted the use of BHR reports to establish lower market rates. Northern Irish courts, pursuant to this decision and similar decisions such as Clayton v Admiral Insurance are now very open to an evidence-based approach to rate assessment. Judges in this jurisdiction are now inclined to consider such reports, even those whose rate include the requirement for a Quaestor type insurance excess.

There are of course often many technical objections to the various hire providers and whether the policies they offer are truly comparable however, in line with Mr. Justice Stephens’ decision in SEH&SCT v Capper & Flanagan [2015] NIQB 30, the judges tend to be prepared to disregard overly technical submissions.

A BHR report creates the clear prima facie basis for a defence on rate provided a claimant is not relying on impecuniosity in Northern Ireland.

Strategic Considerations for Insurers when addressing Impecuniosity in Northern Ireland

1. Early Disclosure

Request financial disclosure as soon as a credit hire claim is made. This includes:

A clear confirmation on whether impecuniosity is being claimed
Supporting financial documents
Clarification on the claimant’s efforts to mitigate loss

2. Challenge the Reasonableness of the Hire

Even if impecuniosity is established, the hire must still be reasonable in:

Rate: Was the credit hire rate excessive?
Duration: Was the hire period unnecessarily prolonged?
Provider: Was the hire company selected based on necessity or convenience?

3. Use Robust BHR Evidence

If the claimant is not impecunious—or fails to prove it—defendants can argue for the BHR as seen in our recent case in Letterkenny Ireland. This requires:

Evidence from local, reputable hire companies
Documentation of availability, pricing, and terms at the time of the accident.
Demonstration that the claimant could have accessed these services

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors?

With offices in Belfast and Dublin, and with a client base of both insurers and leading AMCs Lacey Solicitors is uniquely positioned to deal with credit hire claims across both jurisdictions. Our team has extensive experience in:

Challenging claims of impecuniosity in Northern Ireland
Preparing and presenting robust BHR evidence
Advising insurers on cross-border litigation strategy
Resolving claims efficiently and cost-effectively

Conclusion on Impecuniosity in Northern Ireland

Impecuniosity is not just a financial question—it’s a legal and evidential one. For insurers, the key to managing credit hire claims lies in:

Early engagement with claimants and their solicitors
Demanding timely and complete financial disclosure
Challenging the reasonableness of the hire in terms of rate, duration, and necessity
Using robust BHR evidence to limit liability where appropriate

At Lacey Solicitors, we are committed to delivering strategic, evidence-led defence in credit hire litigation. Contact our Belfast or Dublin office to learn how we can support your claims handling team.

Why Lacey Solicitors Is a Finalist Favourite at the 2025 Irish Law Awards — And Why Clients Call Us the Best Solicitors in Belfast and Dublin

Posted on 10 June 202510 June 2025 by Lacey Solicitors

Lacey Solicitors was proud to be among Ireland’s elite legal firms at the 2025 LEAP Irish Law Awards, in Dublin. With more than 500 legal professionals in attendance and hosted by the charismatic Anton Savage, this black-tie event celebrated the highest standards of excellence in Irish law.

We’re honoured to have been named finalists in four major categories, highlighting our deep expertise, client-focused service, and commitment to innovation. Though we didn’t leave with a trophy this time, being recognised on such a prestigious platform affirms why we’re consistently named among the best solicitors in Belfast and top injury and insurance lawyers in Dublin.

Lacey Solicitors Belfast – Finalists in Four Prestigious Categories

At Lacey Solicitors, our recognition in multiple award categories underscores our leadership in insurance litigation, civil law, and property law throughout Ireland and Northern Ireland:

Civil Litigation Firm of the Year
Renowned for handling complex insurance litigation with skill and precision, our team in Belfast and Dublin delivers strong courtroom performance and strategic case management.
Excellence & Innovation in Client Services
Our LEXCEL-accredited approach combines technology, responsiveness, and exceptional care—whether we’re handling credit hire claims, catastrophic injury claims, or technical policy coverage disputes.
William Wilson – Property Lawyer of the Year (Finalist)
Recognised for excellence in residential and commercial property law, William Wilson has become a go-to legal advisor for investors and landlords navigating complex transactions.
Ruaidhri Austin – Personal Injury Lawyer of the Year (Finalist)
Ruaidhri’s commitment to justice, backed by a strong defence background and a passion for personal injury advocacy, resulted in him being nominated as one of the best injury lawyers in Ireland.

Two Offices, One Mission: Legal Excellence Across Ireland

With strategically located offices in Dublin and Belfast, we’re proud to provide clients with top-tier legal support in both jurisdictions. Whether you’re dealing with an accident at work, a motor claim, or a major property transaction, Lacey Solicitors is ready to help.

Dublin Office: Ormond Building, 31–36 Ormond Quay Upper, D07 EE37
+353 1 5134375

Belfast Office: 3rd Floor, 18–22 Hill Street, Cathedral Quarter, BT1 2LA
+44 28 9089 6540

Our Services – What Makes Us one of the Best Injury Lawyers in Belfast

Lacey Solicitors provides a comprehensive range of legal services for individuals, insurers, and businesses.

Every claim is managed with a tailored, results-driven approach that prioritises client outcomes while navigating the complexities of Irish and UK legal systems.

Recognised, Respected, Recommended

As finalists in the 2025 Irish Law Awards, we stand alongside the top firms who are shaping the future of the legal profession in Ireland. Winners like Callan Tansey, Byrne Carolan Cunningham LLP, Blake & Kenny LLP, and Hugh J Ward & Co Solicitors are worthy peers in an increasingly competitive field.

Lacey Solicitors is proud to be recognised as part of this legal elite. Our work reflects the values celebrated at the awards: service, innovation, resilience, and integrity.

“We are incredibly proud to be finalists in four prestigious categories this year. Our team works tirelessly to deliver exceptional legal service, and we’re particularly pleased to see William Wilson and Ruaidhrí Austin recognised for their dedication and expertise.”
— Terry Lacey, Senior Partner

Why Choose Lacey Solicitors?

If you’re searching for the best solicitor in Belfast or the best injury lawyer in Dublin, here’s why clients across Ireland and Northern Ireland consistently choose Lacey Solicitors:

Decades of Combined Legal Experience
Our seasoned team delivers expert guidance, grounded in years of handling complex legal matters and securing successful outcomes.
Leading Personal Injury and Insurance Law Specialists
From motor and public liability to catastrophic injuries and industrial disease claims, we offer deep expertise in personal injury litigation.
Firmly Rooted in Insurance Law
Our background lies in representing major insurers, which gives us a strategic edge when advocating for individuals. We understand how insurance companies operate — and use that insight to protect and maximise your claim.
Members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL)
As proud members of APIL, we adhere to the highest standards of legal practice, client care, and ongoing training in personal injury law. This ensures our clients benefit from the most current, effective representation available.
National Recognition at the 2025 LEAP Irish Law Awards
Finalists in four major categories, including Civil Litigation Firm of the Year and Personal Injury Lawyer of the Year, reflecting our leadership and impact in the legal sector.
A Personal, Responsive Service Model
We take the time to understand your unique circumstances, provide regular updates, and tailor our legal strategy to your needs.
Cross-Border Expertise
With offices in both Dublin and Belfast, we provide seamless service for clients with cases spanning the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Full-Service Claims & Litigation Handling
From initial investigation through to courtroom representation and settlement, we manage everything — including policy coverage advice, recovery actions, and cradle-to-grave claims.
Client-Focused Legal Innovation
Leveraging the latest legal technologies, we offer efficient, transparent, and cost-effective services.
Award-Winning Individual Talent
Senior solicitor Ruaidhrí Austin was named a finalist for Personal Injury Lawyer of the Year, and William Wilson for Property Lawyer of the Year, showcasing the depth of talent within our team.
Respected by Individuals, Insurers & Businesses Alike
Trusted across sectors, we’ve built our reputation on results, professionalism, and client-first values.
Clear, Strategic Legal Advice
No jargon. No delay. Just practical, results-oriented legal guidance at every stage of your claim or case.

Contact Us – Speak to a Solicitor Today

Are you in need of experienced legal advice and want to speak to a firm who’s solicitors were nominated as the best solicitors in Belfast? Don’t settle for anything less than award-level service.

Visit our website to Enquire Today
Or reach us directly via our Contact Page

Lacey Solicitors – Legal Solutions, Delivered with Excellence.
Trusted Across Belfast & Dublin | Expert. Strategic. Client-Focused.

Accident Management Companies in Northern Ireland: Support After a Car Crash or an unnecessary Risk?

Posted on 6 June 20251 June 2025 by Lacey Solicitors

At Lacey Solicitors in Belfast, we help clients navigate the often confusing world of motor insurance and car crash claims. In recent years, we’ve seen a sharp increase in clients seeking the services of accident management companies (AMCs). While these companies can provide much-needed assistance following a crash, there are also serious risks involved.

This article provides a brief look at how AMCs work, the pros and cons of using them after a car crash, and the legal and financial implications involved—especially when it comes to credit hire agreements.

What Are Accident Management Companies and Why Do People Use Them After a Car Crash?

An Accident Management Company (AMC) offers post-accident services to drivers. This includes:

Reporting the crash to your insurance company
Recovering the damaged vehicle
Providing a temporary replacement (credit hire)
Managing repairs
Dealing with insurers
Recovering uninsured losses
Assisting with personal injury claims

AMCs are especially attractive to businesses with vehicle fleets or private motorists who want to avoid dealing directly with their insurance company or worry about losing their no-claims bonus after a car crash.

Benefits of Using an Accident Management Company

One-Stop Service
AMCs undoubtedly simplify the process by handling everything after a car crash—from recovery to legal claims—so you can focus on recovery or getting back on the road.
No Upfront Costs (in Non-Fault Crashes)
In most situations where you are not at fault in a car crash, you do not pay upfront for the replacement vehicle or repairs. These costs are recovered by the AMC from the at-fault party’s insurer.
Little Impact on Your Insurance Premium
Unlike traditional insurance claims, involving an AMC after a crash may help you avoid a hit to your no-claims bonus or an increase in your premiums.
Quick Recovery and Replacement
Your damaged vehicle is towed quickly, and a temporary replacement is often provided within 24 hours of the crash, limiting business or personal disruption.
Expert Accident Claims Handling
AMCs employ specialists and normally work with the best road traffic accident lawyers who know how to negotiate car crash claims and legal issues efficiently.

The Risks: What Lacey Solicitors Is Seeing More Often

The majority of AMCs provide a premium service to their customers. often at a stressful time in their lives. Despite this however, we have seen a significant rise in complaints related to the services and conduct of AMCs after car crashes.

Common problems include:

Poor Communication and Informed Consent

We’ve seen many cases where clients were not told they were leaving their motor insurance cover. Many drivers are unaware of the terms and conditions of the credit hire agreement they are entering into. Many believe that the AMC is actually their insurer. This often happens when drivers are referred to an AMC after reporting their crash to an insurer or broker, unaware they are now dealing with a third-party provider.

Financial Liability If The Insurer Refuses to Pay

Many drivers do not understand the risks or responsibilities of credit hire after a car crash. If the at-fault driver’s insurer denies liability or disputes the costs claimed by the AMC, you may be personally responsible for the hire charges or repair costs after the crash depending on the terms and conditions of your agreement.

How Credit Hire Works — And Why It Can Backfire After a Crash

In most cases, a non-fault driver receives a like-for-like hire vehicle from the AMC after a car crash. You sign an agreement stating that you won’t be charged unless the at-fault insurer refuses to pay.

The risks?

If liability for the crash is disputed, the third-party insurer may not pay at all
You may have to go to court—or worse, you may be asked to pay the bill yourself
Claims for high-end vehicles (e.g. a Tesla Model 3 for 3+ months) have been challenged for being excessive, unnecessary or poorly managed

Key Legal Issues in Credit Hire Disputes

At Lacey Solicitors, we act on behalf of insurers and AMCs and regularly advise on credit hire claims. Four common issues emerge in car crash-related cases:

1. Need

Was a replacement vehicle actually necessary? Courts will consider:

Whether you had another car available
Your daily mileage
Public transport alternatives

2. Duration

Was the vehicle hired for longer than necessary? Delays caused by you or the AMC on your behalf can reduce the compensation recoverable following the crash.

3. Hire Rate

AMCs offer a premium service and ask for no money upfront. For that reason they often charge credit hire rates, which are higher than normal and higher than you might find from a high street provider. Unless you can prove impecuniosity (financial hardship), you may only be entitled to claim the basic hire rate (BHR)—i.e. the rate of a high street provider.

4. Impecuniosity

To justify full credit hire costs, you must prove, that as a matter of priorities, you couldn’t afford a hire car from a high street provider after the crash. Courts require documentary evidence such as:

Bank statements
Payslips
Regular monthly expenses

Without this, your claim for the full hire cost may be reduced or rejected.

When Should You Avoid an AMC After a Car Crash?

You should think twice about using an AMC if:

You have another vehicle or public transport access
Liability for the crash is unclear
You are unclear about the terms and conditions of credit hire

How to Protect Yourself After a Crash

Ask for Full Details: Get written information about what you’re signing and a copy of any agreement.
Speak to a Solicitor First: Before entering into a credit hire or repair agreement after a car crash, get legal advice—especially if liability is in dispute. Most road traffic accident solicitors will be able to guide you to a reputable AMC.
Request Transparency: Ask the AMC directly who is liable if the third-party insurer refuses to pay or if a court finds you liable.

Our Experience and How We Can Help

At Lacey Solicitors in Belfast, we represent individual motorists, business fleets, brokers and insurers facing legal challenges after a crash. We offer:

Legal representation in credit hire disputes
Advice on whether to use an AMC following a car crash
Support in claims for hire/repair costs as well as defending such claims

Conclusion: AMCs Can Help After a Car Crash — But Only If You Know the Risks

Accident management companies can provide essential services—particularly in non-fault car crashes—but not all AMCs are created equal. Unclear agreements, lack of disclosure, and liability disputes can quickly turn what you thought was a simple “free” replacement car into a costly legal battle.

If you’ve been involved in a crash and are unsure whether to use an accident management company, or if you’re facing a credit hire dispute, contact our experienced team at Lacey Solicitors.

Need help with a credit hire or crash-related claim? Call us today at 028 90 896540 or email info@laceysolicitors.com.

Use our online portal for expert advice on car crash claims and insurance law in Belfast and Dublin.

Irish Supreme Court Refines the Test for Dismissal of Actions for Want of Prosecution

Posted on 4 June 20254 June 2025 by Lacey Solicitors

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21 brings much-needed clarity to how Irish courts handle inordinate and inexcusable delay in litigation. This landmark decision is especially significant for insurers, defendant solicitors, and claims handlers combating stale or inactive claims.

Background: A Decade of Delay

The underlying case in questionconcerned a professional negligence action by Mr Kirwan against his solicitor. Proceedings were initiated by Mr. Kirwan in 2013 however he did not progress his case for five years. The Defendant brought an application to court in 2018 to have Mr Kirwan’s case dismissed for delay in prosecuting his claim pursuant to Order 122 Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court

The High Court agreed and dismissed Mr Kirwan’s case for inordinate and inexcusable delay. using the principles in Primor. This decision was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal.

On final appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, but used the opportunity to clarify the applicable principles and propose a more structured approach.

**The Primor Principles: A Quick Recap**

In the case of Primor Plc -v- Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 IR 459 it was decided that the following three limbs must be taken into consideration in the context of delay:

Is the litigation delay inordinate?

Is the delay inexcusable?

Does the balance of justice favour dismissal?

A balance was to be struck by the Courts in ensuring the Constitutional requirement that justice was administered effectively and expeditiously, and that procedural fairness was adhered to.

Kirwan Principles Now Applicable

(Per O’Donnell C.J. at para. 26 – Kirwan v Connors & Ors[2024] IESC):

1. Inactivity < 2 Years

Until the point is reached where there has been inactivity for two years a claim should only be dismissed if the claim is an abuse of the process or there is prejudice to the defendant to the level required to ground an application under the O’Domhnaill v Merrick jurisdiction.

2. Inactivity ≥ 2 Years

After two years of total inactivity, a claim may be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is likely that a claim will only be dismissed at this point if in addition to the period of inactivity a plaintiff can point to some additional prejudice or other factor pointing towards dismissal. If a court does not dismiss the claim, it would be entitled to make strict case management directions on the basis that non-compliance with such directions would itself justify dismissal

3. Inactivity ≥ 4 Years

If there has been four years total inactivity then the claim should be dismissed if it is dependent on oral evidence so that the defendant is exposed to the risk of failing recollections and witness reluctance that inevitably accompanies a long effluxion of time, unless the plaintiff persuades the court that there are compelling reasons why the claim should not be dismissed and can be properly allowed to go to trial. Conversely, if there are factors such as specific prejudice to the defendant that will strengthen the case for dismissal, but it should be emphasised that it is not necessary to point to any such factor: passage of this amount of time is itself enough and the plaintiff should bear the onus of establishing that there are reasons that the case can properly proceed.

4. Inactivity ≥ 5 Years

Finally, where there has been a cumulative period of complete inactivity for more than five years…the court should have a generous power to dismiss cases, and the court should feel free to dismiss the proceedings unless satisfied that there is a pressing exigency of justice that requires that the case be permitted to go to trial. This would include exceptional situations in which the plaintiff faced educational social or economic disadvantage, or otherwise in progressing their action, in very unusual cases in the realm of public law where the proceedings disclose an issue the public interest demands should be litigated to conclusion or where there has been serious misconduct by the defendant in the course of the proceedings.

A Realistic View of Litigation Delay

Chief Justice O’Donnell reflected on the realities of litigation, cautioning against the idealistic view that every case should proceed to trial unless manifestly unfair.

He noted that:

“Many more claims are commenced than ever resolved… such claims are commenced for a range of reasons and not merely because a plaintiff considers that they have been injured…”

He acknowledged that litigation decisions are driven by cost, witness availability, and procedural strategy. Importantly, requiring a defendant to defend a case after years of inaction—even if theoretically still ‘fair’—may be fundamentally unjust.

This pragmatic view supports insurers and defence counsel seeking early dismissal in long-dormant files. The Court expressly recognised that delay alone can constitute prejudice, even where documentation remains intact.

Training for Insurers: Stay Ahead of the Curve

This decision provides significant procedural clarity for addressing stale claims and litigation delay. Defendant representatives dealing with dormant or stale files should apply the established thresholds to advise on strike-out prospects with their instructing insurers.

The Kirwan v Connors case does however stipulate that the test is not rigid but remains a matter of judicial discretion. It acknowledges that judges may have differing opinions in borderline cases, which is an inherent and necessary aspect of the legal system. The goal of the jurisprudence is not to dictate outcomes in marginal cases but to provide enough guidance to resolve most cases without lengthy hearings and appeals. This refinement of the Primor test aims to expedite decisions and focus on key issues in more balanced claims.

“In any other field of activity, two years is a very long time to do nothing. The administration of justice should not be different.”

Lacey Solicitors is an Irish Insurance law firm and we regularly deliver training sessions to insurers on the evolving legal and procedural landscape of insurance litigation on the entire island of Ireland.

If your team would benefit from a practical, up-to-date training on litigation tactics in Ireland, please use the Contact Us section of our website to arrange a training session.

Use of a Motor Vehicle Under Irish Insurance Law: Revisiting Urban and Rural Recycling and Section 56 RTA 1961

Posted on 3 June 20254 June 2025 by Lacey Solicitors

In a decision with significant implications for motor and employer’s liability insurers, the Supreme Court provided much-needed clarification on what constitutes the “use” of a motor vehicle under Irish law. The case—Urban and Rural Recycling Ltd & RSA Insurance Ireland DAC v Zurich Insurance plc [2024] IESC 43—examined the boundaries of Section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, with the Court ultimately holding that an employer’s liability to an injured employee, arising from the operation of a stationary vehicle during the course of employment, falls within the scope of compulsory motor insurance.

The ruling followed a successful appeal by RSA Insurance, which had declined indemnity on the basis that its employer’s liability policy excluded claims covered under the Road Traffic Acts. The core legal question before the Court was whether such liability ought to have been covered under the company’s motor policy with Zurich.

Case Background

Mr. Joseph Moore, an employee of Urban and Rural Recycling Ltd, suffered catastrophic injuries in 2013 when a bin fell and struck him on the head while he was operating a lifting mechanism on a recycling truck. The truck, parked at the side of a public road, was owned and operated by the company as part of its normal business.

The company held:

A motor fleet policy with Zurich Insurance, and
An employer’s liability policy with RSA, which excluded liability falling under the Road Traffic Acts.

Both insurers denied liability, prompting a legal dispute to determine who was obliged to indemnify the employer for the €4.75 million settlement agreed with the injured employee.

Questions to be answered on Use of a Motor Vehicle Under Irish Insurance Law

The case turned on whether the employer’s liability fell within the scope of Section 56(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which prohibits the use of a vehicle in a public place without motor insurance that covers liability for injury caused by its negligent use.

The Supreme Court was asked to determine:

Whether a body corporate can be a “user” of a vehicle under the Act;
Whether an employer can be a user through the actions of an employee acting in the course of their duties;
Whether the operation of equipment on a stationary vehicle constitutes “use” within the meaning of Section 56.

Expanded Interpretation of ‘Use’ Under Irish and EU Law

Domestic Context (Road Traffic Act 1961)

Section 56(1)(a) of the RTA prohibits a person from using a vehicle in a public place unless they are insured against all sums they may be liable to pay as damages for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle.

Historically, “use” in Irish motor insurance law was often narrowly construed to mean driving or moving a vehicle. However, the Supreme Court has now confirmed that this view is no longer tenable, particularly in light of the European Motor Insurance Directives.

EU Law and Functional Approach to “Use”

In its judgment, the Court took a purposive approach, holding that the word “use” in this context is not limited to driving or road travel. Relying on the wording of the Directive 2009/103/EC and related EU case law, the Court reaffirmed that “use” includes any function consistent with the ordinary operation of the vehicle as a means of transport, including static functions such as loading.

This interpretation mirrors the Court of Justice of the European Union’s approach in several key cases, including Vnuk, Rodrigues de Andrade, and more recently Línea Directa Aseguradora SA v Segurcaixa (Case C-100/18), where a stationary vehicle that caught fire while parked in a private garage was deemed to be in “use” for the purpose of the Directive.

In Línea Directa, the CJEU held that a vehicle remains within the scope of compulsory insurance even when it is parked and not in motion, provided the vehicle is still being used in a manner consistent with its transport function. That principle was instrumental in shaping the Supreme Court’s reasoning.

**Case Summary: Línea Directa Aseguradora SA v Segurcaixa [2019] (C-100/18)**

In Línea Directa, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) addressed whether damage caused by a fire in a stationary vehicle (parked in a private garage and not moved for over 24 hours) fell within the meaning of “use of vehicles” under Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC.

Facts

A car caught fire due to an electrical fault in a private garage, causing property damage.
The insurer of the car (Línea Directa) denied liability, arguing that the vehicle was stationary and not in use.
The ECJ was asked whether such a situation was covered by compulsory motor insurance.

ECJ Ruling

The Court held that:

“Use” of a vehicle includes being parked between journeys, as parking is a natural and necessary step in the operation of a vehicle as a means of transport.
The vehicle’s stationary status did not exclude it from the Directive’s scope.
Fire caused by a part of the vehicle (e.g., electrical system) is within the remit of “use” if the vehicle is being used in accordance with its function as a means of transport.

This ruling has been explicitly cited by the Irish Supreme Court as a key influence in broadening the understanding of “use” to include operational functions of a stationary vehicle, such as waste loading in Urban and Rural Recycling.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court determined:

The company was a user of the vehicle through the actions of its employee.
There is no requirement in the legislation that “user” must refer to a natural person.
Multiple users can exist simultaneously. A user (the employer) may be liable to another user (the employee) if their negligence causes injury.

The lift mechanism was part of the vehicle’s ordinary equipment and its operation formed part of the vehicle’s normal function in waste collection. On this basis, the Court concluded that the injury arose from the negligent “use” of the vehicle within the meaning of Section 56.

Since RSA’s employer’s liability policy specifically excluded Section 56 Liabilities, Zurich—as the motor insurer—was held responsible for providing indemnity.

Legislative Criticism and Call for Clarity on Use of a Motor Vehicle Under Irish Insurance Law

In delivering the judgment, the Court also addressed broader concerns about the legal framework for compulsory motor insurance in Ireland. Section 56, it noted, was not designed with EU obligations in mind, and subsequent amendments have not sufficiently modernised it. The piecemeal development of this area of law, in the Court’s view, poses a real risk of non-compliance with European directives.

The Court issued a clear call for legislative reform, warning that if Irish law fails to align fully with the Directive, the State may ultimately be exposed to liability for compensating victims where insurers would otherwise be responsible.

“A complete and coherent legislative overhaul of the compulsory motor insurance obligation is long overdue.”
— Murray J.

Practical Implications for Insurers

Motor Insurers

The decision confirms that motor policies must be prepared to respond to a broader range of risks than previously assumed. Claims involving injuries during the stationary use of a vehicle—especially involving operational equipment—may fall within compulsory insurance.

Employer’s Liability Insurers

Insurers with exclusions for liability falling under the Road Traffic Acts can now rely with greater confidence on the enforceability of those provisions in similar contexts.

Brokers and Claims Management

This case underlines the importance of clarity in policy drafting and risk allocation across multi-policy programmes. In sectors involving regular vehicle-based operations (e.g. waste management, construction, logistics), policyholder education and internal claims coordination will be essential.

Conclusion

The Urban and Rural Recycling case marks a welcome and authoritative moment in the interpretation of use of a motor vehicle under Irish insurance law. By aligning more closely with evolving EU jurisprudence, it ensures greater protection for victims, clearer delineation of insurance liabilities, and sets the stage for overdue legislative reform.

Insurers, brokers, and corporate policyholders should act now to audit and align policy language, claims handling practices, and underwriting assumptions with this broadened scope of what it means to “use” a motor vehicle under Irish and EU law.

Lacey Solicitors is an all-island Insurance law firm and we regularly deliver training sessions to insurers on the evolving legal and procedural landscape of motor insurance in Ireland. These sessions are available both in person and online, tailored to claims teams, legal departments, or senior handlers.

If your team would benefit from a practical, up-to-date session on policy, please use the Contact Us section of our website to arrange a training session.

Lacey Solicitors Finalists in Four Major Categories at the 2025 LEAP Irish Law Awards

Posted on 23 May 202521 May 2025 by Lacey Solicitors

Lacey Solicitors, a prominent insurance and litigation law firm with offices in Belfast and Dublin, has been named as a finalist in four distinguished categories at the 2025 LEAP Irish Law Awards. These nominations affirm the firm’s commitment to delivering high-quality legal representation and reinforce its reputation as one of the most respected law firms in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

As one of the most competitive years on record, the Irish Law Awards continue to spotlight the finest legal talent across the island of Ireland. A full list of finalists for each category can be found here. Lacey Solicitors’ recognition across multiple categories cements its position as a legal leader in insurance litigation and personal injury law.

Lacey Solicitors – 2025 Irish Law Awards Finalists

1. Civil Litigation Firm of the Year

Recognised as a top-tier civil litigation law firm in Ireland, Lacey Solicitors has demonstrated exceptional skill in managing complex insurance disputes. The firm’s civil litigation solicitors in both Belfast and Dublin are known for their strategic approach, dedication to client outcomes, and courtroom expertise.

2. Excellence & Innovation in Client Services

This category acknowledges Lacey Solicitors’ unwavering focus on client satisfaction, innovation, and use of legal technology. Their commitment to LEXCEL means a responsive, client-centred service across all departments — from cross-border insurance litigation to complex property disputes.

3. William Wilson – Property Lawyer of the Year (Finalist)

William Wilson, a senior solicitor at the firm, has been recognised for his outstanding work in property law across Northern Ireland. From residential purchases to commercial property transactions, his experience and professionalism make him a trusted legal advisor for both individuals and businesses.

4. Ruaidhri Austin – Personal Injury Lawyer of the Year (Finalist)

Ruaidhri Austin has been shortlisted for his excellence in personal injury law in Ireland and Northern Ireland. He has been recognised for combining a defence background with a passion for securing justice for innocent victims and is a respected campaigner for cross‑sector collaboration to ensure fair outcomes for all.

Belfast and Dublin Solicitors Celebrated for Legal Excellence

Lacey Solicitors’ recognition at the LEAP Irish Law Awards 2025 underscores its continuing reputation as a leading provider of legal insurance services in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. With offices in Belfast and Dublin, the firm continues to deliver outstanding results across key practice areas:

“We are incredibly proud to be finalists in four prestigious categories this year. Our team works tirelessly to deliver exceptional legal service, and we’re particularly pleased to see William Wilson and Ruaidhrí Austin recognised for their dedication and expertise,” said Terry Lacey, Senior Partner.

About Lacey Solicitors – Insurance and Injury Litigation Experts

With decades of combined legal experience, Lacey Solicitors offers comprehensive legal solutions from strategically located offices in Belfast and Dublin. The firm is known for:

Expert legal advice tailored to client’s needs
A results-driven approach to litigation
Deep experience in insurance claims, civil disputes, and property transactions
A strong cross-border presence for clients operating in both jurisdictions

Contact Lacey Solicitors – Belfast & Dublin Offices

Looking for expert legal representation in civil litigation, insurance law, personal injury, or property law in Ireland? Contact Lacey Solicitors today using our online contact page.

Drop in Medical Negligence Claims Compensation Payments by Irish State Claims Agency (SCA)

Posted on 5 March 20255 March 2025 by Lacey Solicitors

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:

Physical Hazards Exposure: Claims related to slips, trips, and falls rose by €4.6 million, totalling €21 million.
Behavioural Hazards Exposure: Claims involving violence, harassment, or abuse increased by €3.9 million, reaching €15.2 million in 2024.
Psychological Hazards Exposure: Cases involving wrongful death or psychological trauma rose by €3.6 million, totalling €28.3 million in pay-outs.
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.

Further Calls from Mr Justice Twomey for Discovery Reform in Irish Courts.

Posted on 27 February 2025 by Lacey Solicitors

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.