Applying the Personal Injuries Guidelines to Historical Psychiatric Injury Claims and Calibrating Aggravated and Exemplary Damages in Intentional Assaults:
Commentary on Doherty v Friel [2025] IEHC 718

Note: This commentary is for academic and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

1. Introduction

Doherty v Friel [2025] IEHC 718 is a High Court of Ireland decision of Ms Justice Reynolds arising out of an extraordinary and violent neighbour dispute between two farmers in Co Donegal. The incident, which occurred in January 2015, involved the deliberate shooting of one farmer, Gerald Sweeney, and a violent attack upon vehicles and persons by the defendant, Mr Patrick J. Friel, and his son.

The plaintiff in this action, Mr Shaun Doherty, was not the primary target of the shooting but was directly caught up in the incident. He:

Was driving Mr Sweeney’s jeep on a laneway bordering both farm holdings;
Witnessed Mr Friel and his son violently attacking Mr Sweeney and his vehicle;
Observed Mr Friel shoot Mr Sweeney;
Had his own vehicle attacked and shots fired at it; and
Was expressly threatened that he would be “finished off” and that the same would be done to him.

As a result, Mr Doherty suffered significant and prolonged psychological injury, including anxiety, depression, disturbed sleep, social withdrawal, and hypervigilance, requiring long-term counselling. The case is closely linked to the companion judgment Sweeney v Friel [2025] IEHC 716, which sets out the factual background in greater detail and contains the primary analysis of aggravated and exemplary damages; Reynolds J explicitly adopts those findings in Doherty.

The key legal issues in Doherty v Friel are:

The assessment of quantum for significant, prolonged psychiatric injury in the absence of guidance from the now-superseded Book of Quantum;
The use of the Judicial Council’s Personal Injuries Guidelines as an aid to quantification in a “historical” case predating the Guidelines;
The award and calibration of aggravated and exemplary damages in the context of an intentional, violent assault and reprehensible litigation conduct; and
The treatment of special damages and the making of costs orders where the defendant fails to attend.

Although the judgment is relatively concise, it is doctrinally significant in two principal respects:

It confirms that, where the Book of Quantum offers no assistance, the High Court will have “due regard” to the Personal Injuries Guidelines when valuing psychiatric injury in pre-Guidelines cases.
It illustrates a robust use of aggravated and exemplary damages to respond both to the viciousness of the original intentional wrong and to the defendant’s subsequent conduct in the litigation, including delay and obstruction.

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1 Factual and Procedural Background

The incident occurred in January 2015 in Churchill, Letterkenny, Co Donegal. Mr Doherty was assisting his neighbour, Gerald Sweeney, with farm work and driving Sweeney’s jeep. As he approached a laneway between the two farms, he witnessed an unprovoked and violent confrontation by the defendant and his son, which culminated in Mr Friel shooting Mr Sweeney and attacking vehicles with a nail bar. Mr Doherty’s own vehicle was attacked and fired upon, and he was threatened with similar treatment if he did not leave.

The High Court notes that the full chronology and narrative are detailed in the related case Sweeney v Friel, and that those findings must be read in conjunction with this judgment. Reynolds J does not re‑rehearse liability issues here; the focus is firmly on quantum and the appropriate level of aggravated and exemplary damages.

2.2 Plaintiff’s Evidence and Injuries

The plaintiff gave evidence of:

Witnessing a “vile and vicious” attack on Mr Sweeney;
Hearing a “bang” (the gunshot), seeing the defendant with a gun, and hearing explicit threats;
Feeling “utterly helpless” and fearing for his life;
Subsequent intense distress, trauma, anxiety, depression, nightmares, and social withdrawal;
A prolonged course of counselling over almost three years; and
Ongoing hypervigilance and periodic anxiety, though no longer in active treatment.

The Court had the benefit of medical evidence from:

Dr Josephine Tiernan, GP (report of 18 June 2015);
Mr Philip O’Rourke, Psychotherapist (report of 22 July 2016); and
Dr C.J. Haley, Consultant Psychiatrist (report of 27 February 2017).

These reports describe:

Acute shock and distress immediately after the incident, with anxiety, agitation, vomiting, and sleep disturbance;
Persistent nightmares, general anxiety, low mood, irritability, and loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities;
Significant social withdrawal, emotional numbness, panic attacks, lack of motivation, and impaired concentration;
Slow and steady, but not rapid, improvement through counselling; and
A psychiatric diagnosis of mixed anxiety and depression, with symptoms persisting more than two years post-incident.

By the time of judgment, Mr Doherty (aged 43) still experienced bouts of anxiety and hypervigilance, though he no longer required ongoing therapy.

2.3 Quantum of General Damages for Psychological Injury

Reynolds J emphasises that this is a case of “considerable antiquity” – the incident occurred in 2015, the proceedings were commenced in 2016, and judgment is delivered in 2025. She observes that:

“in circumstances where no guidance is available from the Book of Quantum, the court has had due regard to the approach as outlined in the Personal Injury Guidelines for the assessment of psychological injuries and the considerations to be taken into account.”

Taking account of:

The plaintiff’s age (34 at the time of the incident);
The profound effect of the incident and the significant adverse mental health consequences;
The long duration of symptoms and the need for nearly three years of counselling;
The degree of social withdrawal, isolation, and interference with ordinary life; and
Continuing hypervigilance and intermittent anxiety;

the Court awards general damages for psychological injury in the sum of €50,000.

2.4 Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

For aggravated and exemplary damages, Reynolds J:

Adopts the findings she had already made in the related case Sweeney v Friel on these issues; and
Makes additional observations specifically concerning Mr Doherty’s case.

The Court notes evidence that:

The defendant’s means extend beyond his farming enterprise; and
He is a “successful businessperson”.

Reynolds J concludes that the defendant’s conduct:

Exacerbated the plaintiff’s suffering;
Prolonged his recovery; and
Denied him the opportunity of having his claim dealt with in a timely fashion.

Characterising the defendant’s conduct as “reprehensible in every manner”, the Court stresses that it must:

“mark its disapproval both in terms of further punishment and to provide a deterrent for such behaviour.”

The Court awards €30,000 by way of aggravated and exemplary damages.

2.5 Special Damages

Special damages of €7,505 are claimed and allowed in full. These include:

The solicitor’s fee for the PIAB (Personal Injuries Assessment Board) application; and
Medical and travel expenses.

The Court is “satisfied from the evidence” that these amounts are properly recoverable.

2.6 Final Orders and Costs

The Court calculates the total award as:

General damages (psychological injury): €50,000.00
Aggravated and exemplary damages: €30,000.00
Special damages: €7,505.00
Total: €87,505.00

Before finalising orders, Reynolds J directs that:

A hard copy of the judgment is to be served on the defendant in the manner used throughout the proceedings; and
The defendant is to be notified that final orders, including costs, will be addressed at a hearing fixed for 19 November 2025.

At a later costs hearing on 9 December 2025, the defendant does not appear. Satisfied that he had been properly notified (including of earlier adjourned dates), the Court grants the plaintiff an order for his costs, including any reserved and/or discovery costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Frameworks Cited or Relied Upon

3.1.1 The Related Judgment: Sweeney v Friel [2025] IEHC 716

The only case expressly cited in the judgment is the companion decision Sweeney v Friel [2025] IEHC 716. That judgment:

Sets out the full factual chronology of the shooting incident;
Addresses, in detail, the issues of aggravated and exemplary damages; and
Contains findings regarding the defendant’s conduct during the incident and the litigation.

Reynolds J states:

She does “not propose to rehearse” the facts again; and
She will “adopt the findings [she has] already made on the issues of aggravated and exemplary damages.”

This is a classic example of incorporation by reference between related High Court judgments: where two or more actions arise from the same incident and are heard together or sequentially, judges will often set out the detailed factual and legal background in one principal judgment and adopt that reasoning in related decisions to avoid duplication and ensure consistency.

Although the full text of Sweeney v Friel is not reproduced here, its influence is clear: the aggravated and exemplary damage award in Doherty is effectively an application of the legal principles articulated in Sweeney to the plaintiff’s particular circumstances.

3.1.2 Personal Injuries Guidelines and the Book of Quantum

The Court explicitly refers to:

The absence of relevant guidance in the former Book of Quantum; and
Having “due regard” to the Personal Injuries Guidelines (adopted by the Judicial Council) for assessing psychological injuries.

Historically, Irish courts used the Book of Quantum as a benchmark for valuing personal injuries. That document did not always provide detailed or nuanced categories for psychiatric injury. In 2021, it was effectively superseded by the Judicial Council’s Personal Injuries Guidelines, which contain more structured and granular bands for:

General psychiatric damage; and
Post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The statutory regime makes the Guidelines binding for accidents occurring on or after a specified commencement date, while for earlier incidents (like this 2015 shooting) they are not strictly binding but are often treated as highly persuasive by the courts.

This judgment is significant because Reynolds J uses the Guidelines in precisely that way: as a persuasive framework in a historical case where the Book of Quantum offers no help. She does not mechanically apply a particular band; instead, she:

Refers to the “approach as outlined” in the Guidelines; and
Assesses the severity and duration of the plaintiff’s psychological symptoms consistently with that structured approach.

Thus, the case confirms and exemplifies a developing practice: Irish courts will look to the Personal Injuries Guidelines to assist in valuing older claims, particularly where the Book of Quantum is silent or inadequate, even though the Guidelines are not strictly binding in such cases.

3.1.3 Wider Legal Background (Not Cited but Contextually Relevant)

The judgment itself cites no other authorities, but it operates against the backdrop of established Irish tort law on:

Psychiatric injury (formerly referred to as “nervous shock”), including the recognition that psychiatric harm can be recoverable where it is a recognisable psychiatric illness caused by the defendant’s wrongdoing; and
Aggravated and exemplary damages, notably the jurisprudence (e.g. cases such as Conway v INTO and others) setting out their nature, limits and proper use.

While these cases are not named in the judgment, the structure and language used by Reynolds J are fully consistent with that existing jurisprudence:

Aggravated damages are compensatory, reflecting increased hurt, humiliation or injury to feelings caused by the defendant’s conduct; and
Exemplary (or punitive) damages are non‑compensatory, awarded to punish particularly egregious conduct and deter both the defendant and others from similar behaviour.

3.2 Legal Reasoning: Psychiatric Injury and Quantum

3.2.1 Recognising Psychiatric Injury in an Intentional Assault Context

A notable aspect of Doherty v Friel is that the plaintiff’s injuries are purely psychological: he was not physically shot or struck, but he:

Witnessed a shooting at close quarters;
Was the direct subject of explicit death threats; and
Had his own vehicle shot at and attacked.

In some jurisdictions, the law of negligent infliction of psychiatric injury involves complex “control mechanisms” (requirements of proximity, sudden shock, close tie of love and affection, etc.). Here, however, the context is not negligence but a deliberate, violent assault. The defendant’s conduct was plainly directed at, and foreseeably likely to cause, serious distress and psychiatric harm to Mr Doherty.

Reynolds J does not need to undertake a detailed doctrinal exploration of the boundaries of psychiatric injury claims; the facts are so extreme that the causal link between the wrongful conduct and the plaintiff’s psychiatric illness is straightforward. The judgment proceeds on the clear basis that:

The plaintiff has suffered a recognisable psychiatric injury (diagnosed as mixed anxiety and depression); and
This injury was caused by the traumatic events of January 2015.

3.2.2 Use of Expert Evidence

The Court relies heavily on contemporaneous and subsequent medical documentation, particularly:

GP records of immediate and ongoing distress;
Detailed psychotherapy notes documenting low mood, panic attacks, emotional numbness, and functional impairment; and
Psychiatric assessment by Dr Haley, who expressly finds “adverse psychological and mental health consequences” persisting more than two years after the incident.

This evidence is used to establish:

That the plaintiff’s reactions were not transient upset but amounted to a sustained psychiatric condition;
The duration of symptoms (multiple years), which is critical for quantum; and
The degree of functional impact (withdrawal from social life, loss of interest in horses, difficulty performing ordinary tasks), which is also a key factor under the Personal Injuries Guidelines.

3.2.3 Application of the Personal Injuries Guidelines

While the judgment does not specify the exact band within the Guidelines that the Court had in mind, the language used strongly suggests that the Court was mapping the plaintiff’s condition against the moderate to moderately severe range for general psychiatric damage:

The injury was serious and long-lasting (over two years), requiring intensive counselling over almost three years;
There was substantial social and functional impairment for a period; but
By the time of trial there had been significant improvement, with the plaintiff no longer in active treatment, albeit experiencing residual hypervigilance and anxiety.

The award of €50,000 is broadly consistent with a psychiatric injury that is serious, prolonged, but ultimately showing good recovery with some ongoing vulnerability – more than a minor or short-lived disturbance, but less than a catastrophic, life‑dominating disorder with poor prognosis.

Reynolds J expressly states she has had regard to the “approach” in the Guidelines, rather than mechanically applying a number. This reflects the intended judicial use of the Guidelines: they provide structured bands and factors (e.g. severity, duration, effect on work and relationships, response to treatment), but do not substitute for a judge’s evaluation of the particular facts.

3.2.4 Weight Given to Duration and Ongoing Vulnerability

Two elements of the reasoning are worth highlighting:

Duration of suffering and treatment:
The plaintiff attended counselling for almost three years and continued to suffer significant symptoms more than two years after the incident. Prolonged suffering is a major aggravating factor in the assessment of general damages.
Continuing residual symptoms:
The Court notes that Mr Doherty remains hypervigilant and experiences periodic anxiety. Even where a plaintiff has made a functional recovery, courts often recognise ongoing vulnerability or susceptibility to flare‑ups as a real component of the injury, and this judgment reflects that approach.

The Court’s language – that the plaintiff suffered “significant adverse mental health consequences which have been prolonged in nature despite his early engagement with treatment” – signals that both the intensity and duration of the injury played a central role in placing the case towards the upper end of the relevant guideline range.

3.3 Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

3.3.1 Conceptual Distinction (Contextual Background)

Although the judgment does not separately define the terms, it is clear that Reynolds J is drawing on the settled Irish understanding of:

Aggravated damages – an enhanced form of compensatory damages awarded to reflect additional suffering, humiliation or injury to feelings caused by the manner or motive of the defendant’s wrongdoing, including conduct during the litigation; and
Exemplary (or punitive) damages – non‑compensatory damages awarded in limited categories of case to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct, particularly where the conduct is deliberate, malicious, or shows a reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s rights.

In practice, Irish courts often award a single combined figure described as “aggravated and exemplary damages”, without parsing how much is attributable to each; that is the approach taken here.

3.3.2 Adoption of Findings from Sweeney v Friel

Reynolds J explicitly adopts her previous findings on aggravated and exemplary damages from the related Sweeney case. While we do not have those findings in full, we can infer that they involved:

A recognition of the extreme violence and malice of the original attack; and
A critique of the defendant’s litigation conduct in both proceedings.

By linking the two judgments, the Court ensures:

Consistency in the treatment of multiple plaintiffs arising from the same tortious incident; and
Economy of reasoning, avoiding repetition of extensive analysis.

3.3.3 Factors Identified in Doherty Itself

In addition to adopting Sweeney, Reynolds J makes case‑specific findings in Doherty:

She notes evidence that the defendant is a successful businessperson with means extending beyond his farming enterprise; and
She finds that his conduct during the litigation:
- Exacerbated the plaintiff’s suffering;
- Prolonged his recovery; and
- Denied him a timely resolution of the claim.

The emphasis on the defendant’s means is important. Under Irish law, a defendant’s wealth is generally irrelevant to compensatory damages but is relevant to exemplary damages: a sum that might be punitive for an ordinary person may be trivial for a wealthy defendant. By expressly referring to the defendant’s financial success, the Court signals that the level of exemplary damages must be sufficient to have real punitive and deterrent effect.

The Court also highlights that this is a case of “considerable antiquity”. The protracted nature of the proceedings, attributable in part to the defendant’s conduct, is treated as an aggravating facet of the harm: the plaintiff’s mental health recovery was prolonged and his ability to move on with his life was hampered by ongoing litigation. That is squarely within the traditional function of aggravated damages, which compensate for additional suffering caused by how the defendant has chosen to defend or conduct the case.

3.3.4 Quantum: €30,000 as Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

The award of €30,000 for aggravated and exemplary damages is substantial relative to the base general damages of €50,000 – more than half the amount of the primary compensatory award. This reflects:

The exceptional gravity of the initial wrongdoing (an armed, malicious attack, including firearms discharged at or near the plaintiff and the shooting of his friend);
The ongoing impact on the plaintiff of the defendant’s approach to the proceedings; and
The Court’s express desire to mark its “disapproval” and to “provide a deterrent for such behaviour.”

The judgment therefore serves as a clear signal that:

Where defendants engage in violent intentional wrongdoing; and
Then compound the harm through obstructive, dilatory or otherwise reprehensible litigation conduct;

Irish courts are prepared to make robust awards of aggravated and exemplary damages, particularly where the defendant has significant financial means.

3.4 Special Damages and Litigation Procedure

3.4.1 Recovery of PIAB Fees and Out-of-Pocket Expenses

Special damages of €7,505 are awarded, including:

The solicitor’s fee for the PIAB application; and
Medical and travel costs.

This is consistent with the general rule that:

A plaintiff can recover reasonable, provable out‑of‑pocket expenses incurred as a direct result of the tort; and
Costs incurred in mandatory pre‑litigation processes (such as PIAB applications) may, in appropriate cases, be recoverable as special damages, distinct from party‑and‑party legal costs.

Although the judgment does not detail the evidential basis, Reynolds J expressly states that she is “satisfied from the evidence” that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full sum claimed. The relatively modest quantum and lack of challenge from the defendant may have made a more detailed analysis unnecessary.

3.4.2 Service of Judgment and Costs Hearing

Procedurally, the Court takes care to ensure fair notice to the defendant before making final orders. After determining the quantum of damages, Reynolds J:

Directs the plaintiff’s solicitor to serve a hard copy of the judgment on the defendant; and
Notifies him of the date and time for consideration of final orders, including costs.

At the subsequent costs hearing, the defendant fails to appear. Satisfied that proper notice was given (including of previously adjourned dates), the Court:

Awards the plaintiff his costs, including any reserved and discovery costs; and
Directs that these be adjudicated in default of agreement.

This underscores two points:

Due process is preserved: Even where a defendant has been obstructive or non‑cooperative, the Court ensures that he is fully informed of judgment and given an opportunity to be heard on consequential orders (such as costs).
Proceedings cannot be indefinitely stalled by non‑attendance: Once proper notice has been established, the Court is entitled, and indeed obliged, to proceed in the defendant’s absence and make final and costs orders.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Types of Damages

4.1.1 General Damages

These are damages for non‑financial loss – pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and in this case, psychological distress and psychiatric illness. Mr Doherty’s €50,000 general damages award compensates:

His intense trauma immediately after the incident;
Years of anxiety, depression, nightmares and panic attacks; and
Continuing hypervigilance and residual anxiety.

4.1.2 Special Damages

Special damages are for out‑of‑pocket expenses that can be precisely quantified, such as:

Medical costs (GP visits, counselling, psychiatric assessment);
Travel costs to appointments; and
The solicitor’s PIAB application fee.

They total €7,505 in this case.

4.1.3 Aggravated Damages

Aggravated damages are an enhanced form of compensation. They are awarded where:

The defendant’s conduct is particularly insulting, humiliating or malicious; or
The way the defendant defends the case (for example, by unnecessarily prolonging it or treating the plaintiff with contempt) adds to the plaintiff’s suffering.

Here, the defendant’s violence and subsequent litigation conduct aggravated Mr Doherty’s feelings of distress and helplessness, justifying an additional award.

4.1.4 Exemplary (Punitive) Damages

Exemplary damages are different: they are non‑compensatory. They are awarded:

To punish particularly outrageous conduct; and
To deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar behaviour.

In this case, the shooting and threats, combined with the defendant’s conduct during the proceedings, are treated as sufficiently egregious to justify such a punitive component. The Court groups aggravated and exemplary damages together in a single figure of €30,000.

4.2 Psychiatric Injury vs. “Mere Upset”

Not every emotional reaction to a distressing event is legally compensable. To recover damages for psychiatric injury, a plaintiff must generally show:

A medically recognisable psychiatric disorder (such as depression, anxiety disorder, PTSD, or in this case mixed anxiety and depression); and
A causal link between that disorder and the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Normal grief, worry or upset, without more, will not suffice. Mr Doherty’s case goes well beyond this threshold: he required months and years of formal medical and therapeutic intervention, and was diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist with a clear psychiatric condition.

4.3 Personal Injuries Guidelines vs Book of Quantum

The Book of Quantum (now obsolete) was a guide used by Irish courts and PIAB to value personal injuries. It grouped injuries into categories with indicative monetary ranges, but it was relatively limited in its treatment of psychiatric injury.

The Personal Injuries Guidelines, adopted by the Judicial Council, are more detailed and are now the principal reference point. They provide:

Specific bands for psychiatric disorders of varying severity; and
Non‑exhaustive factors to be considered (duration, severity, prognosis, impact on work and daily life, etc.).

For incidents after their commencement date, courts are required to assess damages in accordance with the Guidelines. For earlier incidents, as in Doherty, they do not strictly apply but can be used as persuasive guidance, especially where the Book of Quantum does not address the injury type. That is exactly what Reynolds J does here.

4.4 Costs “to be adjudicated in default of agreement”

When the Court awards costs “to be adjudicated in default of agreement”, it means:

The parties are first given an opportunity to agree on the amount of costs (solicitor’s fees, counsel’s fees, outlays, etc.); but
If they cannot agree, the costs will be assessed (taxed) by the Legal Costs Adjudicator.

This is a standard mechanism to resolve disputes over the quantum of legal costs while avoiding immediate recourse to a full taxation hearing if agreement is possible.

5. Impact and Broader Significance

5.1 Reinforcement of Protection for Victims of Violent Intentional Torts

Doherty v Friel reinforces and illustrates that:

Victims of violent intentional wrongdoing – even where they are not physically injured – are fully entitled to substantial compensation for psychiatric injury; and
Courts will treat such psychological harm with the same seriousness as many physical injuries, particularly where it is prolonged and functionally disabling.

The case will be of particular relevance to:

Victims who are directly threatened or have their lives put at risk, even if unharmed physically;
“Bystanders” who witness extreme violence (such as shootings) at close quarters; and
Those living in close-knit communities, where ongoing fear of encountering the assailant can deepen and prolong psychiatric injury.

5.2 Use of Personal Injuries Guidelines in Historical Cases

By expressly relying on the Personal Injuries Guidelines where the Book of Quantum offers no guidance, the judgment:

Clarifies that the Guidelines can and should be used as a structured, persuasive framework even for incidents predating their commencement; and
Promotes greater consistency and transparency in awards for psychiatric injury across time.

This will assist practitioners and insurers in advising on older claims still in the system, particularly those involving psychiatric harm, where the Book of Quantum is silent or outdated.

5.3 Deterrent and Disciplinary Role of Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

The case is also significant for its strong message regarding aggravated and exemplary damages:

Violent, malicious conduct – especially involving firearms – will attract not only compensatory damages but also robust punitive elements, particularly where the defendant can afford to pay;
Defendants who seek to protract or manipulate proceedings in ways that prolong the plaintiff’s distress risk substantial aggravated damages; and
Court disapproval of such behaviour will be clearly marked in monetary terms, both to punish and deter.

For litigants and their advisers, this judgment underscores that litigation strategy and conduct are not neutral: they can materially affect the level of damages awarded, over and above the underlying liability.

5.4 Procedural Fairness Despite Non‑Attendance

Finally, the meticulous steps taken to serve the judgment on the defendant and to notify him of the costs hearing demonstrate the Court’s commitment to fair procedures, even where a defendant has been non‑cooperative. At the same time, the Court confirms that:

Non‑attendance will not impede the making of final and costs orders where proper notice has been given; and
Plaintiffs are entitled to see their claims brought to a conclusion without indefinite delay.

6. Conclusion

Doherty v Friel [2025] IEHC 718 is a concise but substantively important decision in Irish personal injuries and tort law. It:

Affirms the serious and compensable nature of prolonged psychiatric injury caused by violent intentional wrongdoing, even in the absence of physical injury;
Demonstrates the High Court’s willingness to employ the Personal Injuries Guidelines as a structured, persuasive tool in valuing historical claims where the Book of Quantum offers no guidance;
Illustrates a robust approach to aggravated and exemplary damages in response to both the original egregious conduct and subsequent reprehensible litigation behaviour, calibrated in light of the defendant’s means; and
Shows careful procedural management to ensure fair notice and efficient resolution, culminating in a comprehensive award of damages and costs despite the defendant’s absence at the final stage.

For future cases, the judgment provides a clear template for:

Assessing psychiatric injury in intentional assault contexts;
Using the Personal Injuries Guidelines to frame quantum in older cases; and
Arguing for (or against) aggravated and exemplary damages where a defendant’s conduct has been particularly egregious or obstructive.

In sum, Doherty v Friel reinforces both the compensatory and normative functions of tort law: it makes good the plaintiff’s injury and, through aggravated and exemplary damages, forcefully signals societal condemnation of deliberate, violent wrongdoing and abusive litigation conduct.

Applying the Personal Injuries Guidelines to Historical Psychiatric Injury Claims and Calibrating Aggravated and Exemplary Damages in Intentional Assaults: Commentary on Doherty v Friel [2025] IEHC 718