Senior judges argue against proposed guidelines on personal injury awards

Barrister's Wig

21 February 2021

A number of senior higher court judges have circulated memos to colleagues arguing against proposed guidelines that would lead to reductions in personal injury awards.

The guidelines were produced by a seven-judge committee of the Judicial Council, which was chaired by the president of the High Court, Ms Justice Mary Irvine.

A meeting of the council involving up to 160 judges to discuss the proposals, held remotely on February 5th, was adjourned to Saturday next because judges wanted more time to consider the proposals, it is understood.

Since then a number of memos have been circulated privately by judges to colleagues arguing against the proposed guidelines – including one from a judge of the Court of Appeal.

A collective memo from a number of judges experienced in personal injury cases arguing against, and a number of individual contributions have also been shared. Not a single memo in favour has emerged.

Insurance costs

The Government is hoping that guidelines produced by the council will see personal injury awards fall and that this in turn will lead to a reduction in insurance costs.

When the council met remotely on February 5th, a vote on whether that meeting should decide on adopting the guidelines, or defer the matter to a later date, was tied.

The draft was circulated to judges on February 1st. Some felt they needed more time to consider and exactly half of them voted against deciding on them on that day.

A casting vote by Chief Justice Frank Clarke then deferred the matter to this coming Saturday.

In one memo, a High Court judge argued the guidelines could see injured people getting awards that fall “significantly short” of what could be regarded as fair and reasonable.

The judge said the suggested “recalibration” of compensation had gone too far and that younger people with certain injuries and disabilities would be particularly unfairly treated.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Autistic cinema manager wins €12k over discrimination in roster row

An autistic cinema manager who quit when his employer was unable to guarantee him two days off in a row following a months-long dispute over rostering arrangements has secured €12,000 in compensation for disability discrimination. The complainant's wife gave evidence...

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...