Waterford woman's appeal against personal injury award guidelines opens

The test challenge has important implications for personal injuries awards

Bridget Delaney claims the Personal Injuries Assessment Board delayed in assessing her injuries until the new guidelines were introduced, acted in breach of fair procedures and she contends her assessment should not have been conducted under the new guidelines.

An appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a test challenge aimed at setting aside guidelines on personal injuries awards has opened before the Supreme Court.

A seven-judge court is hearing a direct appeal against a High Court decision dismissing claims brought by Bridget Delaney from Dungarvan, Co. Waterford. The case has important implications for personal injuries awards.

Her appeal is against Mr Justice Charles Meenan's rejection of all grounds of her challenge including claims that the 2021 guidelines, which have seen awards reduced by up to 40%, were unconstitutional and amounted to an encroachment on judicial independence.

Submissions in the appeal, made by Feichin McDonagh SC and Shane Murphy SC for Ms Delaney, commenced before a Supreme Court comprised of Mr Justice Peter Charleton, Mr Justice Brian Murray, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, Mr Justice Maurice Collins, Ms Justice Marie Whelan, Ms Justice Mary Faherty and Mr Justice Gerard Haughton on Tuesday.

Ms Delaney's case focuses on a vote taken in March 2021 by the Judicial Council, the body made up of all the State's judges, to adopt the new guidelines. She claims the guidelines are unfair to persons who have suffered personal injuries.

She claimed she fractured a bone in her right ankle, after she tripped and fell at a public footpath in Dungarvan on April 12, 2019. She required medical treatment, physiotherapy and was given a walker boot for several weeks and has claimed she sustained her injuries due to the alleged negligence of Waterford City and Council.

In June 2019 she submitted a claim to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), seeking damages. However, she claims PIAB delayed in assessing her injuries until the new guidelines were introduced, acted in breach of fair procedures and she contends her assessment should not have been conducted under the new guidelines.

She also claims the guidelines and their adoption by the judicial council also failed to have adequate regard to awards made by the Irish courts in personal injuries actions.

Ms Delaney seeks orders quashing the assessment PIAB made in respect of her claim, and the Judicial Council's decision to adopt the new personal injuries guidelines.

She also seeks various declarations including that PIAB breached her rights to natural and constitutional justice, and that the Judicial Council acted outside of its powers in adopting the guidelines.

The action is against the State, and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) the government body that makes personal injuries awards, and is aimed at setting aside guidelines regarding awards for personal injuries claims.

In opposing the appeal, the respondents reject her claims concerning the guidelines, which were drawn up by a committee of the Judicial Council, before being approved following a ballot of all the State's judges.

In his judgment last year, Mr Justice Meenan rejected all of Ms Delaney's claims, including that her rights had been breached, and he also found that PIAB had acted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 2003 PIAB Act when it assessed her personal injuries claim.

He said that Ms Delaney's constitutional rights of property and bodily integrity and equality "did not encompass a right to a particular sum of damages, but rather a right to have her damages assessed in accordance with well-established legal principals".

He said that the independence of the judiciary, along with the expertise and experience in the awarding of damages, meant the judicial council was an appropriate body to draft and adopt the guidelines.

She appealed that decision and was granted a hearing by the Supreme Court.

A panel of three Supreme Court judges said it was satisfied that the exceptional points of public importance had been raised in the case that warranted the hearing of a direct appeal before it, rather than the Court of Appeal.

Among the issues being considered by the Supreme Court in the appeal are the interpretation and construction of delegated legislation regarding the implications of the constitutional mandate of judicial independence and the separation of powers between judges and the Oireachtas.

The hearing continues.