by Deirdre O'Sullivan , Kevin Kelly July-12-2024 in Healthcare Law
The Court of Appeal recently reduced an award of damages granted by the High Court in view of the trial judge’s approach to assessing quantum, clarifying how quantum is to be determined where there are multiple injuries inflicted at the same time.[1]
The case arose from a road traffic accident on 20 March 2019, during which the plaintiff, who was travelling as an unrestrained rear seat passenger in the defendant’s car, sustained multiple injuries after the defendant’s excessive speed caused the car to go out of control, collide with a tree and roll into a field.
Judgment of the High Court
As a result of the car accident, the plaintiff sustained multiple injuries to her neck, back, teeth and ears together with developing an acute stress reaction and was subsequently diagnosed with depression.
In its relatively brief decision, the High Court identified the plaintiff's psychological injury as the dominant injury for assessing quantum and awarded €55,000 for this injury without specifying which section of the Personal Injuries Guidelines informed that assessment. The court then considered the uplift award for the various other physical injuries sustained by the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff €40,000. The court then combined those awards and awarded the plaintiff a global figure of €95,000 in general damages.
Decision on Appeal
The defendant appealed the decision on the basis that the award was excessive and disproportionate, the amount awarded for psychiatric injury placed it within the serious category at section 4A(b) of the Personal Injury Guidelines, the judge did not provide any reason for the amount of the uplift or how he arrived at the figure he awarded, the judge departed from the Guidelines without providing reasons as he was obliged to and that the judge failed to have regard to comparable cases or other awards available under the Guidelines.
In its judgment Collins v. Parm [2024] IECA 150, the Court of Appeal stated as follows:
a. The court is obliged to have regard to the Guidelines and must state reasons if it is to depart from the Guidelines, which should be referenced in such judgments. The Court of Appeal also stressed that it was “noteworthy” that neither legal team in the case referred to the Guidelines during the hearing and provided “absolutely no assistance” on how to approach assessing damages, implying that the parties should endeavour to assist the court in assessing quantum.
b. The court recommended that the following two-stage process be adopted in assessing quantum where there are multiple injuries:
-
- The “most significant” injury or dominant injury i.e. the injury with the highest value should be determined with reference to the Guidelines, bearing in mind the principles of fairness and proportionality.
-
- Where there is a dominant injury, the other injuries should then be assessed with reference to the Guidelines and then combined. The court will then consider the temporal overlap of injuries along with the maximum and equivalent awards available under the Guidelines for suffering of similar gravity to that of the plaintiff’s overall injury profile. The court can then apply a deduction from the value assigned to the plaintiff’s lesser injuries or from the initial aggregate amount.
c. Where there is no apparent “most significant” injury, the court advised that a lower level of discount will apply than would be applied to the aggregated “lesser injuries” in cases where there is an apparent “most significant” injury.
d. It is appropriate for the court to look at comparable assessments for the purpose of guidance.
In valuing the plaintiff’s dominant injury at €35,000, the Court of Appeal then combined the value of plaintiff’s lesser injuries at €30,000, before applying a one third deduction to that figure in view of the temporal overlap. The Court of Appeal therefore totalled the plaintiff’s award for general damages at €55,000, reducing the High Court award for general damages by 42%, prior to making a further undisputed discount of 15% for contributory negligence.
It is clear that uplift awards are to be fair and transparent so that plaintiffs are not over or under compensated.
The appellate decision is a much-welcomed clarification as to how the court should approach quantum assessments where there are multiple injuries by way of demonstrating how uplift awards are to be calculated and reduced. The decision is also insightful insofar that it reiterates the importance of referring to the Personal Injuries Guidelines and the necessity for the court to adopt a holistic and proportionate approach to assessing quantum.
[1] Collins v. Parm [2024] IECA 150
Back to Full News
Share this article:
About the Authors
Deirdre O'Sullivan
Deirdre O’Sullivan is a senior associate in the Healthcare team at Hayes solicitors. She acts on behalf of public hospitals and private medical and dental practitioners in the defence of clinical negligence claims.
Kevin Kelly
Kevin is a Legal Executive in the Healthcare Litigation Team. He works closely with partners, associates and solicitors in medical negligence defence claims including high value catastrophic injury cases. He liaises with clients, counsel and experts in preparing cases for trial and for settlement negotiations.