Enquire Today

Tag: insurance lawyer

Discovery, Implied Undertakings and Contempt of Court. A Conor McGregor Saga.

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

The headlines have been dominated this week by Conor McGregor and the case against him by Ms Nikita Hand where Italian news articles indicate an ‘imminent publication’ of the Discovery from the case.

In November 2024, Ms Hand won her claim for damages and was awarded just shy of €250,000 damages against Mr McGregor on foot of the jury verdict where they found that he had raped Ms Hand six years ago.

McGregor’s legal team have indicated that they intend to appeal against the decision.

Whilst much focus has been made on the legal costs, which is an eye watering 1.3million Euro, the legal principles surrounding Discovery in Ireland is also gathering media attention.

 

Background

 

Lawyers for Ms Hand and Mr McGregor made representations relating to key CCTV evidence which showed Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel, Sandyford, Dublin.

The material was gathered by An Garda Siochana and supposedly her demeanour in the CCTV footage was one of the factors that prompted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) not to bring criminal charges.

It was provided by An Garda Siochana on foot of a High Court order for preparing for and litigating the civil case.

It was shown several times during the case and was the subject of media coverage.

Lawyers for Ms Hand had sought assurances that Mr McGregor would not disseminate the material after newspapers reported on social media comments that claimed the footage would be released this month.

The comments were attributed to Gabriel Ernesto Rapisardo, who Justice Owens said was a business associate of Mr McGregor.

Ray Boland SC for Ms Hand said Mr McGregor intended to disseminate selected pieces of the evidence with a view to “undermining and discrediting” the findings of the court.

Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor said such an order was not necessary as there was already an implied undertaking that material for the case would not be misused or disseminated.

Justice Owens stated that “such leaking would be a gross contempt of Court.”

 

Discovery and Implied Undertakings

 

Discovery is a pre-trial procedure where parties to a lawsuit can obtain evidence from each other. The purpose is to prevent surprises during the trial and ensure that both sides have access to all relevant information.

The Discovery process in Ireland is governed by Order 31, of the Rules of the Superior Courts though our office has also written about alternative means for Discovery.

Documents and information, in this case CCTV Footage obtained by way of discovery in litigation are subject to an implied undertaking that they will not be used other than for the purposes of the proceedings in which they are concerned.

I.e. McGregor and his legal representatives are prohibited from using the CCTV for any other purpose other than the Defence of the civil claim brought against him by Ms Nikita Hand.

The implied undertaking is owed to the court.  Such discovery may not be used to found other causes of action. The law in Ireland is therefore broadly similar to that of NI.

The rationale underpinning the undertaking was explored in Greencore Group plc v Murphy, where Keane J highlighted that it was an invasion of private rights, constituted by discovery:

“The order requiring the production of…documents is an invasion of the right of the person against whom the order is made to keep his documents to himself and it is for this reason that the Court will ensure that documents are not used for any purposes other than the purpose of the particular legal proceedings in which they are produced by making the order for production subject to that implied undertaking.”

Leaking of documents/information would constitute a breach of undertaking.

In the current case Justice Owens confirmed that it would be a gross breach of Ms Hand’s privacy adding that “the material would quickly spread on the internet and reach the furthest corners of that dark hole”.

The undertaking survives notwithstanding that any discovery obtained is often used in open court.  In this case the CCTV footage was show several times during the case and was the subject of significant media coverage.  The fact that there is an inevitable degree of publicity does not justify widespread dissemination of the material for an ulterior purpose.

 

Breaching Implied Undertakings in Discovery in Irish case Law

 

Tobin v. Minister for Defence [2019] IESC 57 highlighted the importance of the discovery process in ensuring fair civil proceedings while acknowledging potential burdens.

Implications of breaching an implied undertaking were explored in the Irish Supreme Court case of Waterford Credit Union v. J & E Davy [2020] IESC 9 where both the High Court and Court of Appeal, whilst finding documentation to be relevant and necessary, denied discovery citing a breach of the implied undertaking by Waterford’s solicitor in separate proceedings, which had improperly used information obtained during discovery.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the breach of the implied undertaking by Waterford’s solicitor in unrelated proceedings should not prevent the discovery of relevant and necessary documents in the current case. The Supreme Court emphasized the primary duty of ensuring substantive justice and maintaining the integrity of the discovery process over procedural technicalities involving breaches by legal representatives in separate instances.

 

Contempt of Court in Ireland

 

Justice Owens in this case confirmed that there was a “real and demonstrable risk” that the footage would be disseminated and, if that happened, it would be a breach of the implied undertaking not to misuse the material and would constitute civil contempt of Court.

Contempt of court is refers to any behaviour or action that disrespects, disobeys or challenges the authority, justice system and dignity of the work of the courts. It protects the administration of justice by ensuring that court orders are obeyed and that courts can run smoothly.

In Ireland, contempt of court remains on a common law footing.  This is in contrast to NI where it is enshrined in legislation through the Contempt of Court Act 1981.  Indeed the Supreme Court in Ireland has been calling for contempt-of-court legislation for some time. In Kelly v O’Neill ([2000] 1 IR 354), Keane J said that “our law in this area is, in many respects, uncertain and in need of clarification by legislation”.

Order 44 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides that those in contempt of a court order can be attached (arrested) and committed to jail, but it doesn’t specify what “contempt” is.

The Law Reform Commission published a Consultation on Contempt of Court in July 1991 under which it recommended legislative codification on the law in this area, but as of 2025 the closest we have seen to codification is the Contempt of Court Bill 2017, which may have gained traction again if its sponsor, Josepha Madigan, had been re-elected.  

In Irish Bank Resolution Corp Ltd v Quinn and Ors [2012] IESC 51, the Supreme Court commented that the law of contempt of court was amorphous and extremely difficult for the layperson to understand and could be unclear even to judges and lawyers.

The Judge even referred to the position in NI in stating;

 “It is 20 years now since the Law Reform Commission urged the need for statutory reform in this area, and some 31 years since such reform took place by statute in the neighbouring jurisdiction. It is most unfortunate that no positive steps have been taken here, with the result that this fraught matter has come on for resolution in an uncertain state of the law.”

It is understood that the Law Reform Commission continues to consider the matter, but due to the urgency of other work in hand, its report on contempt is not expected to be published until late 2025.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has stated that the publication of this final report is awaited before her department considers any changes to this complex area of law.

 

Dealing with Contempt

 

An infamous line that any UFC fans attribute to Mr McGregor comes to mind, “You’ll do nothing.” 

Another is ‘I’d like to apologise…to absolutely nobody.’

In dealing with Civil Contempt, there is the question of the appropriate order, if any, on foot of any finding of contempt.

Such orders may include, but are not limited to custodial orders, but may also include financial orders.  This is against a backdrop of Justice Owens referring to Mr McGregor as ‘one of the wealthiest men in the country.’ 

The Judge considered social media posts in which Mr McGregor was said to have “scandalised the court” after the jury’s verdict where he referred to Ms Hand as a liar and the court as a ‘kangaroo court’.  He indicated that any action at that stage would only give oxygen and more publicity.  He opted to take no action on the “kangaroo court” comments as it would be a “distraction” and “only keep him in the news cycle”.

Justice Owens has indicated it was necessary to ‘nip this in the bud’ and directed Mr McGregor to return ‘all fobs or sticks’ containing the footage to his solicitor and arrange the permanent deletion of the files from computers and phones within one week.

The judge also directed him to make an affidavit indicating what copies had been made and how they were deleted.

 

 

Understanding Liability in James v Halliday [2024] IEHC 281

Posted on by Maria Adams

The recent Irish High Court decision in James v Halliday [2024] IEHC 281 has sparked discussions about road safety and liability apportionment in accidents involving agricultural vehicles. This case, decided on May 8, 2024, addressed a tragic collision between Darren James (the Plaintiff), a delivery driver, and a tractor driven by the deceased William Wilson (the Defendant).

Central to the judgment was the question of negligence and how liability should be divided between the parties.

 

Case Background and Circumstances

 

The accident occurred on January 12, 2018, on the N14 road between Lifford and Letterkenny in Ireland. The Plaintiff was driving at speeds of 60–70 mph on a wet and winding road.  The tractor, operated by the Defendant, lacked a legally mandated amber flashing beacon.

The collision unfortunately resulted in the Defendant’s death and significant injuries to the Plaintiff.

 

Principles of Liability

 

The Court in determining liability, outlined the well-established principles of negligence:

  • Duty of Care: Both parties owed a duty of care to operate their vehicles safely and in accordance with traffic regulations.
  • Breach of Duty:
    • The defendant breached this duty by failing to comply with lighting regulations, which are critical for ensuring visibility.
    • The plaintiff breached his duty by not adapting his driving speed to the road and weather conditions.
  • Causation: Both breaches contributed directly to the collision.

The Court opted to apportion liability having reference to the relative severity and impact of each parties actions.

The High Court determined the following;

 

Negligence by the Defendant:

 

The court held the estate of the Defendant, 75% liable for the accident in circumstances where the Defendant’s failure to illuminate his tractor with a yellow flashing beacon was deemed a “severe breach of duty.”

 

Contributory Negligence of the Plaintiff:

 

The Plaintiff was found 25% liable for driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions, even though he was within the legal limit.  The court noted that the road’s wet and winding nature required greater caution, which the Plaintiff failed to exercise

The role of Yellow Beacons

 

This case highlights the significance of S.I. No. 354/2015 – Road Traffic (Construction and Use of Vehicles) Regulations.

The purpose of these beacons as outlined by the Revised standards of the Road Safety Authority for Agricultural Vehicles are to warn other road users that they are approaching a slow-moving or large vehicle.

These beacons enhance visibility, particularly in low-light or adverse conditions. The failure to use this safety feature was a critical factor in the court’s decision, as it significantly reduced the tractor’s visibility, making the accident foreseeable and preventable.

 

Considerations for future Liability Disputes

 

This judgment sets a clear precedent for how courts may handle liability in similar cases:

  1. Enhanced Scrutiny on Agricultural Vehicles: Operators of such vehicles must comply with all safety regulations, knowing that non-compliance can result in substantial findings of liability.
  2. Reinforcement of Contributory Negligence Principles: Drivers of other vehicles are also expected to adapt their behaviour to prevailing conditions, even if they are not the primary cause of an accident.
  3. Judicial Focus on Safety Standards: The court’s decision underscores the importance of ongoing regulatory compliance as a cornerstone of road safety.

 

Conclusion

 

The High Court’s ruling in James v Halliday serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities shared by all road users. The decision emphasises that adherence to safety regulations, such as the use of yellow beacons, is not merely a legal formality but a vital measure to prevent accidents. By apportioning liability between the parties, the court sent a clear message: negligence on the part of one does not absolve others from their duty to exercise caution.

This case will likely influence future legal considerations in Ireland, reinforcing the critical link between compliance, visibility, and liability in road traffic law.

 

Court of Appeal Ruling: Claim for Credit Hire Can Proceed Despite Expired MOT

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

In the case of Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP. Zo.o [2024] EWCA Civ 1479, the Court of Appeal delivered a crucial judgment that has wide implications for claims involving credit hire costs, particularly when the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid MOT certificate at the time of the accident.

This case addresses the legal complexities around the principle of mitigation and whether the failure to renew an MOT certificate should prevent a Plaintiff from recovering credit hire charges.

 

MOT delays in Northern Ireland

 

MOT delays were already prevalent in NI prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.  In 2020 BBC NI highlighted that faults had been found on 48 out of 55 lifts and that MOT tests were due to be cancelled.

This, coupled with an increasing population, a higher proportion of households with access to a vehicle as well as older vehicles on the road all has resulted in significant delays in MOT testing in NI. Infrastructure Minister for NI Mr John O’Dowd in 2024 outlined an increasingly high demand for MOT tests and confirmed that 1.1 million tests had been carried out in 2023/24.  The highest numbers ever recorded.

 

MOT, Credit Hire and the position in Northern Ireland.

 

Insurers in Northern Ireland are therefore well used to these cases where the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a valid MOT at the time of the collision but the Plaintiff sought to recover Credit Hire charges.  Morgan v Bryson Recycling Limited and Magill v Donnelly are two cases that come to mind.

Ultimately up until Ali it was held that a court should take a broad view of the circumstances of each case and conduct a case specific inquiry in each case.  For example, a case where the MOT expired a number of years before the accident would be treated differently that a case where the MOT Certificate expired days before the accident.

 

Case Background: The Dispute Over Credit Hire Costs

 

Majid Ali’s vehicle was parked when it was hit by the Defendant’s vehicle.  The Plaintiff, sought to recover over £21,500 from a UK insurer – acting as claims handler for a Polish insurer.

The Plaintiff’s vehicle however did not have a valid MOT certificate at the time of the accident and the certificate had expired four and a half months earlier.

This raised the question of whether the Plaintiff was legally entitled to recover the hire costs, given that his vehicle was not roadworthy.

The usual battlegrounds for Credit Hire cases were, most helpfully, agreed by the Plaintiff and Defendant;

  • The Plaintiff needed to hire a vehicle.
  • The length of hire was reasonable.
  • The type of car hired was reasonable.
  • The Plaintiff was not impecunious.
  • The Defendant did not provide any alternative rate evidence

Furthermore, it was not in dispute that the MOT had expired four and a half months before the road traffic accident nor was there any evidence or suggestion that the Plaintiff intended to obtain a new MOT certificate.

At the County Court level, the Plaintiff’s claim for the hire costs was dismissed on the basis of causation.   That is to say, Majid Ali could not establish that the road traffic accident had, as a matter of law, caused any loss because he had lost the ability to drive a non-roadworthy vehicle only, which he was not legally permitted to use on the road.

The decision was upheld by the High Court and Ali appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The key issue on appeal was whether the lower courts were correct in dismissing the claim for credit hire costs on the grounds of legal causation and the failure to mitigate loss, considering the vehicle could not have been legally driven due to the expired MOT.

 

The Court of Appeal’s Judgment

 

The Court of Appeal revisited and applied earlier case law, notably Hewison v Meridian Shipping [2002] EWCA Civ 1821, and concluded that the minor criminal offence of failing to maintain an MOT certificate should not bar the claimant from recovering credit hire charges.

He disagreed with the Defendant’s submissions that the Plaintiff had suffered no “loss” as a result of the accident.  He relied on Beechwood Birmingham Ltd v Hoyer Group UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 647 is asserting that;

A claimant’s loss is the lack of advantage and inconvenience caused by not having the use of a car ready at hand and at all hours for personal and/or family use.  [The accident] causes the claimant to be deprived of the use of an item of property, which causes inconvenience in the form of inability to use it for private transport. The fact that a claimant does not have a valid MOT certificate for the car does not alter the fact that they have been deprived of its use or the fact that this deprivation would have caused inconvenience but for the hiring.

The absence of a valid MOT certificate was irrelevant to the fact that the Plaintiff was deprived of his vehicle and required a replacement.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith acknowledged that driving without an MOT certificate is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. However, he classified this as a relatively minor infraction, which should not bar recovery of credit hire costs. He noted that the court’s role was to address the direct consequences of the defendant’s negligence – in this case, the loss of the use of the vehicle – and not the minor collateral offence of an expired MOT.

The minor nature of the illegality in this case was insufficient to prevent recovery of the hire charges. The court revisited and reapplied referenced Hewison in stating that a court should not deprive a Plaintiff of damages merely due to a collateral or insignificant illegal act, such as the expired MOT.

Thus, while I would accept that allowing the claim for hire charges in the present case may just about be said to tend towards being harmful to the integrity of the legal system, any harm is in my view strictly limited, leading clearly to the conclusion that it would be disproportionate to have refused the Claimant’s claim on the grounds of ex turpi causa.

 

Broader Legal Implications

 

This ruling has significant implications for both Plaintiffs and Insurers in the context of credit hire claims namely:

  1. Minor Traffic Offences Do Not Automatically Bar Claims: The court established that driving a vehicle without MOT was a relatively minor traffic violation on par with having defective windscreen wipers, or a defective lamp, or a non-conforming number plate and it should not preclude a claimant from recovering credit hire costs.
  2. Causation and Mitigation of Loss: The court clarified that the absence of a valid MOT certificate does not alter the fact that the Plaintiff’s loss – the inability to use the vehicle due to the accident – was caused by the defendant’s negligence. As a result, the claimant was entitled to recover the costs for a replacement hire vehicle.
  3. Potential for Future Cases: Although the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, it acknowledged that there may be cases in the future where more serious traffic offences – such as driving without insurance or with dangerous tyres – could potentially bar a claim or result in a reduction of damages. However, in this case, the court accepted that the failure to renew the MOT certificate was a minor offence and did not warrant a reduction in the claimant’s recovery.

 

Conclusion

 

The Ali v HSF Logistics case draws a conclusion under the long history of this case and similar cases involving a lack of MOT. However, “yet another skirmish-cum-battle in the overall “secular war” between the credit hire industry and defendants’ insurers” continues.

Contact Ruaidhri Austin, Partner in charge of Lacey Solicitors Credit Hire team if you have any questions or require legal advice in any similar cases.

 

Case Study – Credit Hire success for Insurers in Ireland

Posted on by Ruaidhri Austin

Facts

 

The Claimant, a resident of Northern Ireland was involved in a road traffic accident with the Respondent in Co Donegal and subsequently entered into a credit agreement with an  Accident Management Company (AMC) who assisted the Plaintiff with the recovery, storage and inspection of the damaged vehicle as well as a replacement vehicle on a Credit Hire basis.

The Claimant’s motor vehicle was written off following the accident and a timely payment was made by our instructing insurers in relation to the pre-accident value (PAV) of the Claimant’s vehicle.

Hire came to an end and all invoices, to include the claim for credit hire were presented to our instructing insurers who challenged the daily rate claimed in respect of the hire vehicle.

A Claim Notice was filed and proceedings were issued in Letterkenny, Ireland.

 

Lacey Solicitors Insurance Lawyers are appointed

 

Credit hire is not a common phenomenon within Ireland, when compared to Northern Ireland, where Credit Hire is so prevalent after road traffic accidents.

Our instructing Insurers had been, until this point, spared any real experience with these claims.  Ruaidhri Austin, Partner, was appointed to Defend the matter having regard to our offices position as an ‘all-island’ Insurance Law Firm, and his status as a dual qualified solicitor with considerable credit hire experience in both NI and ROI.

 

Challenging the Credit Hire Rate

 

Our initial assessment of the claim was that it was reasonable for the claimant to hire a replacement vehicle and that the vehicle hired was like for like.  Furthermore the period of hire was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.  The daily rate for the hire vehicle however, appeared to be excessive.

We advised our Irish Insurers of the law surrounding Credit Hire in NI and the UK on the issue of Credit Hire Rates.  We advised that simply stating ‘excessive‘ or ‘economic folly’ in the absence of evidence, would not suffice.

We clarified the position in NI and the UK, namely that the burden of proof rests with the Defendant to demonstrate, by evidence (known as Basic Hire Rate evidence) that there was an alternative rate available and that there was a difference between these two rates.

If we failed to provide any evidence of any evidence of alternative daily rates in the form of Basic Hire Rate evidence, then prima facie, the Claimant would be entitled to recover the whole of the Credit Hire rate claimed.

Alternatively, we clarified, if the Plaintiff alleged, that they could not afford to have opted to use any of the high street hire vehicle providers outlined in the BHR evidence, in circumstances where they were impecunious  then they would likely recover the whole of the credit hire rate claimed.

Ruaidhrí Austin wrote appropriately to the Plaintiff’s representatives asking them whether they intended to rely on impecuniosity.  The position of course being that if they did seek to rely on impecuniosity, that they should Plead and Prove same.

Receiving no response, we instructed VeriRate (formerly Surveyorship) to prepare a Basic Hire Rate Report.

The report confirmed that;

  1. At the time of the accident;

  2. There were like for like vehicles available;

  3. In the Plaintiff’s geographical area in NI;

  4. With a cheaper daily rate.

One high street provider confirmed that their total cost of hire, for the entire period of hire, would have been half the total cost of the hire vehicle provided on a credit basis.

A Tender was made on the basis of this report at the lowest rate.

The Tender was refused and when we confirmed to the Claimant’s representatives that no increase would be made to the Tender the matter proceeded to hearing.

 

The Hearing

 

Ruaidhrí Austin attended the hearing of the action in Letterkenny Courthouse.  We secured the attendance of the author of the Basic Hire Rate report from VeriRate to give evidence.  Bearing in mind the likelihood of a court being unfamiliar with the case law from NI and the UK, our office had a number of Judgments on hand to assist the court.

The Plaintiff sought, during the course of the trial, to allege that she could not have afforded to pay ‘upfront’ any high street provider for a replacement vehicle and had ‘no choice’ but to hire a vehicle on credit terms.

We objected in the strongest terms to the Claimant seeking to rely on impecuniosity at that late stage having failed to Plead or Prove same.  We presented the court with the English case of Zurich Insurance Plc v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357.  

The Plaintiff’s representatives sought to argue that impecuniosity was self proving in circumstances where the Claimant was at the time a student.  We presented the court with the NI case of Kerr v Toal [2015] NIQB 83 which confirmed that assessment of impecuniosity is a fact specific exercise and the Defendant should, prior to hearing, be afforded the opportunity to consider the Plaintiff’s financial documentation by way of Voluntary Discovery.

The Plaintiff finally sought to challenge the BHR evidence itself and the author of the report was robustly challenged on the methodology and data sources from the reports.  Arguments were made that the vehicles listed in the BHR report  were not an exact match for the Plaintiff’s own vehicle and that no evidence could be adduced that these rates would have been available at the exact time of the accident but instead could have been days or weeks later.

We presented the court with the English case of Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 93 which confirmed that a court should not allow overly technical arguments and should attempt a reasonable estimate when it comes to the reports.  The replacement need be no more than in the same broad range of quality and nature as the damaged car.  Furthermore an alternative rate from even a year or so later than the accident date is still likely to throw considerable light on what the spot rate would have been at the time.

 

The Judgment and the Credit Hire Rate

 

The Judge stated that the Plaintiff’s impecuniosity would have convinced him to allow the Credit Hire rate but accepted our office’s position that impecuniosity had not been pleaded nor proven.

In the absence of an impecunious Plaintiff, the Judge accepted the evidence presented VeriRate of a BHR rate and the difference between the BHR rate and the Credit Hire rate.

The Judge found that the BHR evidence and evidence from the VeriRate representative confirmed that the Claimant failed to mitigate their losses in opting to utilise a Credit Hire Rate rather than a High Street Provider and paying ‘upfront.’

The Judge having reference to a number of rates within the BHR report awarded the lowest sum available in the BHR Report.

This resulted in a significant saving to our insurer at more than 50% of the Credit Hire invoice claimed.

The figure awarded in respect of hire by the Court failed to ‘beat’ the Tender made by our office almost one year previously.

 

Key Takeaways

 

  1. Credit Hire claims in the Republic of Ireland are a rare phenomenon but are undoubtedly on the rise.

  2. Those cases where the daily rate appears to be excessive should be challenged by way of Basic Hire Rate evidence provided that the Claimant is not relying on impecuniosity.

  3. If a Claimant is relying on impecuniosity, they should plead and prove it.

  4. Tenders remain an effective tool in the Defendant’s arsenal and any Tender should be made with the benefit of a Basic Hire Rate report.

  5. An allowance should be made for a courts unfamiliarity with these types of claims and Defendants should ensure that they have compelling arguments, supported by case law to challenge any issues that arise should the matter proceed to hearing.

 

 

This case was handled by Ruaidhrí Austin of our office.  Ruaidhrí Austin is the Head of the Credit Hire department in Lacey Solicitors and is known and respected in both NI and ROI for his knowledge and experience of Credit Hire claims across all court levels in both jurisdictions.

 

 

 

 

Solicitors Belfast: A Complete Guide to Choosing the Right Practice

Posted on by Lacey Solicitors

Navigating legal matters can be daunting for anyone. That means finding the right solicitor in Belfast is crucial to ensure your legal needs are met effectively and efficiently.

This quick guide provides an overview of what to consider when choosing your belfast solicitor. 

Understanding the Legal Landscape in Belfast and Beyond

 

Belfast is home to various law firms offering a wide range of legal services.

From family law and personal injury claims to corporate law and property transactions, there is a wide range to choose from, depending on your needs. However, understanding the local legal landscape can help you choose the right solicitors who are well-versed in the specific area of law relevant to your case.

Key Considerations When Choosing A Solicitor In Belfast

 

When choosing your a solicitor in Belfast, it’s essential to consider:

Experience and Expertise

Look for Belfast solicitors with experience in the law area you need assistance with. Therefore, the practice should have expertise in addressing disputes, drafting legal papers, and representing clients in court. Having a solicitor with relevant skills is crucial.  Lacey Solicitors has been running for nearly 20 years having been founded in 2005 by Terence Lacey.

Reputation and Reviews

Researching a solicitor’s reputation will give you useful information about their success rate. You can do this by reading client reviews online.  Lacey solicitors has many positive 5 star reviews on Google.  

Accessibility and Communication

Clear and consistent communication is vital in legal matters. So, ensure you choose a practice that is accessible and responsive. In addition, receiving information quickly is essential to the positive progress of your case.

Cost and Transparency

Legal costs can vary greatly. Therefore, it is essential to understand the pricing structure before consulting with a solicitor. Look for someone who offers clear, upfront information about their pricing and any additional expenditures.

Types of Legal Services Available with Lacey Solicitors Belfast

 

Lacey Solicitors in Belfast offer a broad range of services to meet clients’ diverse needs. When choosing a solicitor, it’s essential to understand the specific areas of law they specialise in.

Lacey Solicitors Belfast provides legal services to the insurance industry and those affected by injuries in Ireland while offering a comprehensive suite of legal services, including:

• Motor Liability
• Public Liability
• Employers Liability
• Environmental Claims
• Industrial Disease Claims
• Policy Coverage Advice
• Recovery Actions
• Catastrophic Injury Claims
• Cradle to Grave Claims Handling
• Investigation Services

Continuing from this list, let’s go into more detail.

Firstly, Lacey Solicitors in Belfast provides expert legal support across a variety of niche areas. The firm also focuses on serving the insurance industry in Ireland.

Services include handling motor liability cases and representing insurance companies involved in road traffic accidents. Lacey Solicitors also manage public liability claims regarding injuries or damages on public or private property.

Furthermore, they can assist with employer liability cases, ensuring that workplace injuries are addressed and appropriate compensation is managed correctly.

Finally, Lacey Solicitors Belfast team have experience handling catastrophic injury claims ensures that insurance companies are well-represented when dealing with life-altering injuries and the significant claims accompanying them.

 

Contact the team at Lacey Solicitors here to discuss your legal needs.

Speak to an Expert at Lacey Solicitors today.

Are you missing out on quality advice? Get in touch today to speak to one of our experts.

Send Message

Quick Links

Dublin

Ormond Building, 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin 7, D07 EE37
+353 1 5134375

Belfast

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

© 2025 Lacey Solicitors. All Rights Reserved

Made with by VINDICTA®