The Supreme Court has proposed dismissing Bridget Delaney’s appeal against the use of personal injury guidelines in her assessment, while declaring unconstitutional the provision under which the Judicial Council adopted them. The Court said a later Act of the Oireachtas gave the guidelines legal effect, so they applied to her assessment in May 2021.
The judgment, delivered by Charleton J on 9 April 2024, sets out the Court’s proposed orders after five judgments by seven judges. The Court proposed declaring that section 7(2)(g) of the Judicial Council Act 2019 is unconstitutional in its current form, but also declaring that the guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council on 6 March 2021 were given force of law by section 30 of the Family Leave and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2021. It said the Personal Injuries Assessment Board acted lawfully when it applied the guidelines to Delaney’s assessment.
Delaney tripped on a public footpath in Dungarvan, Co Waterford, on 12 April 2019. She argued that the guidelines would reduce the damages available for her injuries compared with the earlier Book of Quantum. The Board assessed her claim in May 2021, placing her ankle injury in the minor category, for which the judgment said the guidelines provide a range of €3,000 to €20,000. That assessment did not decide whether any defendant was liable, or what damages a court would award. The judgment stressed that those questions remained for a court if the case proceeded.
The Court divided on the constitutional issues. A majority considered the guidelines had legal effects, while a different majority held that section 7(2)(g) was unconstitutional in its current form. Six judges considered that the 2021 Act subsequently ratified the guidelines; Haughton J dissented on that point. Four judges concluded that Delaney had no vested right to have her claim assessed under earlier guidelines.
The judgment also records that Charleton, Murray and Collins JJ considered departure from the guidelines appropriate where they bore no reasonable proportion to the award that should otherwise be made. The proposed orders would dismiss the appeal from the High Court, apart from the declaration concerning section 7(2)(g) and the costs order. The Court indicated that Delaney should presumptively receive her costs from Ireland and the Attorney General, with the Board to bear its own costs.