Summary of Judgment: [2025] IEHC 718

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an action in the High Court arising from a shooting incident that occurred in January 2015 in The Town, The County. The Plaintiff was assisting a Third Party with farm work and was driving the Third Party's vehicle towards a laneway bordering the Third Party's and the Defendant's holdings when violent events unfolded. The Defendant and the Defendant's son attacked the Third Party and the vehicle; shots were fired; the Plaintiff witnessed the Third Party being shot and was threatened and had a firearm pointed at him. The Plaintiff suffered significant psychological injuries, sought medical treatment, counselling and psychiatric assessment, and brought these proceedings for damages.

The court noted that the background and detailed factual findings are set out in a related judgment ([2025] IEHC 716) and adopted the findings made there on issues of aggravated and exemplary damages. This judgment (delivered by Judge Reynolds on 11 November 2025) assessed quantum, aggravated and exemplary damages, special damages, and reserved final orders, with a further costs hearing held on 9 December 2025. The written record is dated 12 December 2025.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the appropriate quantum of general damages for the Plaintiff's psychological injuries sustained as a result of the incident?
2. Whether aggravated and exemplary damages are warranted for the Defendant's conduct and, if so, the appropriate sum.
3. Whether the claimed special damages are recoverable and in what amount.
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order for costs, given the Defendant's non-appearance at the costs hearing and the notifications made.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded on the basis that the detailed factual findings and some determinations regarding aggravated and exemplary damages had been made in the related judgment and that those findings could be adopted for the purposes of this determination.

On liability for psychological injury and assessment of quantum, the court reviewed the Plaintiff's evidence of the incident and the medical material submitted, specifically reports from Doctor Tiernan (GP), Psychotherapist O'Rourke, and Doctor Haley (Consultant Psychiatrist). The court found that the Plaintiff experienced immediate acute distress on the day of the incident (anxiety, agitation, vomiting, disturbed sleep) and thereafter suffered prolonged psychological effects including mixed anxiety and depression, panic attacks, social withdrawal, disturbed sleep and loss of interest in usual activities. The court accepted that the Plaintiff engaged with treatment, attended counselling for almost three years, and that recovery was slow with ongoing hypervigilance and intermittent anxiety.

Because the matter was of considerable antiquity and there was no specific guidance in the Book of Quantum for the circumstances, the court stated it had regard to the approach in the Personal Injury Guidelines for assessing psychological injuries. The court took account of the Plaintiff's age at the time of the incident, the severity and prolonged nature of his symptoms, and the impact on his life when fixing general damages.

On aggravated and exemplary damages, the court expressly adopted the findings made in the related judgment and noted that evidence before the court indicated that the Defendant's means extended beyond farming and that he was a successful businessperson. The court concluded that the Defendant's conduct had exacerbated the Plaintiff's suffering, prolonged recovery, and delayed resolution of the claim. The conduct was described as reprehensible and the court considered that an award of aggravated and exemplary damages was necessary both to mark disapproval and to provide deterrence.

On special damages, the court considered the documentary evidence for the claimed sum relating to solicitor's fees for a PIAB application, medical and travel expenses, and concluded the Plaintiff was entitled to recover the full claimed amount.

On costs, at the costs hearing held on 9 December 2025 the Defendant did not appear. The court was satisfied that the Defendant had been duly notified of the hearing (and of previously adjourned dates). The Plaintiff's senior counsel, Attorney McNally, sought an order for the Plaintiff's costs. The court acceded to the Plaintiff's application for costs, including any reserve and/or discovery costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The court awarded a total of €87,505.00 to the Plaintiff, composed of:

• General damages for psychological injuries: €50,000.00
• Aggravated and exemplary damages: €30,000.00 (adopted from findings in the related judgment)
• Special damages: €7,505.00

The court directed that a hard copy of the judgment be served on the Defendant and scheduled final orders to be made on 19 November 2025, with parties to be heard on final orders including costs. Following the costs hearing on 9 December 2025 (no appearance by the Defendant), the court granted the Plaintiff's application for costs, with any reserved or discovery costs to be adjudicated if not agreed.

Implications: The decision has the direct effect of awarding the stated sums to the Plaintiff and of granting the Plaintiff's application for costs; the opinion did not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond adopting findings from the related judgment and applying established principles for assessing psychological injury and aggravated/exemplary damages.

Judge: Judge Reynolds. Date of judgment: 11 November 2025. Costs entry dated: 12 December 2025.