Judgment confirms that proposed uplift to Personal Injury Guideline Awards do not apply pending enactment of the relevant Statutory Instrument
Reading time: 4 mins
On 12th May 2025, Mr Justice O Higgins, sitting at the High Court in Cork confirmed that the updated Guidelines do not apply and to increase awards by the proposed 16.7% is not permissible in the absence of the enacting legislation. [Somers v The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana & Ors]
In a personal injuries assessment case which involved the Plaintiff suffering injuries during the course of her duties as a member of An Garda Siochana, Counsel for the Plaintiff raised the argument that any award made by the Court should be cognisant of and reflect the proposed amendment to the Personal Injuries Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) with an uplift of 16.7% applied to any award.
Counsel for the Plaintiff made the application when addressing the Court on the various injuries the Plaintiff suffered and the categories of the Guidelines which should apply to such injuries. A reserved judgment on this point was handed down today.
Counsel for the Plaintiff suggested that, when assessing the appropriate damages, the Court should take into account in a general sense the amendments to the Guidelines which have been proposed by the Judicial Council Committee (the “Committee”). The amendments propose to increase awards by a rate of 16.7% to reflect “significant global and national inflation”.
Counsel for the Defendant put it to the Court that applying such increase would be legally unsound and would be entering into “chalky constitutional waters” in circumstances where a Statutory Instrument introducing the amended Guidelines has not yet been enacted.
Justice O’Higgins in handing down his judgment noted that it was submitted by Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Court should take into account the meeting of the Committee which proposed an overall increase of 16.7% to awards (to account for inflation in the preceding three years). It was further acknowledged by Counsel for the Plaintiff that although the Statutory Instrument was not enacted, the Court must take into account that the Guidelines are out of date.
The Court found that in line with the case of Delaney v PIAB & Ors, the statutory architecture and procedure are yet to be finalised with respect to the applicability of the new Guidelines, and the Guidelines do not have the force ‘of even soft law’. It was held that it would be an error to apply the Bill as if it was an act of Oireachtas.
The Court proposed to take into mind the Guidelines but, at the same time, it would be borne in mind that they are only Guidelines and it would not be appropriate for the Court to close its eyes where the body who made the Guidelines have said they are out of date where inflation is concerned.
The Court found on the facts of the case that there was an overlap between a number of the Plaintiffs injuries and that case law speaks of the necessity to take account of ‘roll up factors’ and ‘overlap injuries’ as set out in the case of Meehan v Shawcove Ltd & Ors [2022] IECA. See an insight previously done on the case here. In taking account of this, the Court proposed to discount the non-dominant injury by one-third.
Prior to any deduction the Court founds that the non-dominant injury attracted an award of €42,000. This was deducted by one-third to €28,000. The award for general damages was determined to be €63,000. However, the Court further indicated that this is not the end of the exercise as case law makes clear that it is sometimes necessary to step back and determine if the global figure is a fair and reasonable amount applying the proportionality principle as set out in Meehan.
It was ultimately held that the Plaintiff was awarded €64,800 to include special damages. The Court was satisfied that €63,000 in general damages was fair and reasonable to both parties.