Summary of Anonymized High Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an ex tempore judgment delivered by Judge Barniville in a personal injuries action in which liability was admitted and the matter proceeded to assessment of damages. The Plaintiff, a 68‑year‑old retired medical secretary, was a front‑seat passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband on 7 March 2022 when a vehicle owned and driven by one of the Defendants turned right in front of the Plaintiff's vehicle, causing a violent collision and the Plaintiff’s vehicle to hit a wall. The Plaintiff was taken to The Hospital's Emergency Department. The proceedings came before the Court solely on assessment of damages.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the appropriate quantum of general damages for the Plaintiff's injuries under the 2021 Personal Injuries Guidelines?
2. How should multiple injuries be aggregated (dominant injury focus and proportionality) when assessing awards under the Guidelines?
3. Whether private yoga sessions used to manage ongoing symptoms (not pleaded in the schedule of special damages) are recoverable as special damages and, if so, in what amount?
4. Whether and to what extent the Court should have regard to the revised (2024) edition of the Personal Injuries Guidelines in light of recent case law (Higgins v Coleman & MIBI [2025] IEHC 757).

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff's multiple lower back fractures and sequelae fall within the "moderate" back injuries category (Section 7(B)(c)(i) of the 2021 Guidelines), at the upper end of the €35,000–€55,000 bracket.
• The nasal injury fits Section 9B(c)(iii) (€3,000–€5,000) and should be awarded at the upper end.
• The bruising and development of breast cysts warrant separate awards; bruising aligns approximately with Section 6(A)(g) (broad band) while cysts require a court‑led assessment as no direct category fits.
• The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for private yoga sessions claimed at €2,400 (not set out in the schedule of special damages) as these sessions are referenced in medical reports and assist symptom management.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Defendants submitted the back injuries are appropriately classified as "minor" (Section 7(B)(d)), noting that fractures would ordinarily not fall in that category.
• For the nasal injury the Defendants accepted the cited bracket but argued for a lower award given rapid recovery.
• Neither the bruising nor the cysts map neatly to the Guidelines; the Court must assess these as it sees fit.
• The yoga claim was not pleaded in the schedule of special damages and therefore should not be fully allowed (or at all), though the fact of yoga was referenced in medical reports.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Higgins v Coleman & MIBI [2025] IEHC 757	Whether the revised (2024) Personal Injuries Guidelines may be taken into account, and in what manner, given inflationary adjustments since the 2021 Guidelines.	The Court heard brief submissions on the judgment. The Court noted the statement in that case that the revised Guidelines might be taken into account "in a very general sense" but declined to express a definitive view and proceeded to apply the 2021 Guidelines, reserving fuller consideration for another case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded on the agreed factual and medical evidence and applied the 2021 Personal Injuries Guidelines. The Court considered, but did not apply, the 2024 revision because it had not been given statutory effect; the Court noted recent authority referring to limited regard to the revised Guidelines but preferred to await fuller argument in another case.

The Court applied the Guidelines' requirement to identify the dominant injury and to ensure proportionality rather than mechanically adding category maxima. The Court accepted the agreed medical evidence (from the parties' consultant reports) and the Plaintiff's evidence that she sustained multiple lumbar and sacral fractures and has ongoing symptoms affecting standing, sitting and gardening. The Court found the ongoing symptoms likely to persist.

On that basis the Court classified the combined lower back injuries as "moderate" (closer to the top of the bracket) and assessed them at €50,000. The nasal cartilaginous fracture, treated successfully with manipulation and without residual defect, was placed in the guideline bracket but at the lower‑middle end and assessed at €3,500. The extensive anterior bruising (including severe bruising to the right breast) was treated as a significant soft tissue injury not neatly fitting a single bracket and assessed at €7,000. The post‑traumatic benign oil cysts in the right breast, continuing and tender and likely permanent, were treated as a distinct and significant injury not covered directly by the Guidelines and assessed at €10,500.

In considering aggregation the Court summed category awards (€71,000) and carried out a global proportionality check, concluding no reduction was required. On special damages, the Plaintiff's latest schedule (3 February 2026) was agreed except for estimated travel. The Court adjusted the Plaintiff's travel claim to €715. Regarding private yoga sessions (claimed €2,400), the Court noted the sessions were referenced in medical reports and in updated particulars but were omitted from the schedule of special damages; exercising its discretion and allowing that omission weight, the Court awarded half of the claimed amount (€1,200). The special damages totalled €3,050.

Finally, the Court ordered costs to the Plaintiff (reserved costs and discovery to be adjudicated if not agreed) and placed a 28‑day stay on payment of the award pending any appeal application; any further stay would require application to the Court of Appeal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Plaintiff is awarded €74,050 in total (General Damages €71,000; Special Damages €3,050). Costs are awarded to the Plaintiff; payment of the award is stayed for 28 days.

Implications: The decision resolves the damages assessment in this case and directly affects only the parties by the monetary award and the costs order. The Court applied the 2021 Personal Injuries Guidelines and, while it noted recent authority regarding the 2024 revision, it did not make any definitive ruling accepting or rejecting that revision; no new legal precedent on that point was established in this judgment.

Appearances

For the Plaintiff: Attorney Delaney, Attorney Cahill and Attorney Madden, instructed by Company B.

For the Defendants: Attorney Lannigan-O'Keefe and Attorney Reidy, instructed by Company C.