The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), upholding a High Court declaration that PIAB acted without authority when it declined to follow an injured claimant’s written authorisation and instead corresponded directly with him, copying his solicitor.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J on 19 December 2008, concerned Declan O’Brien, who had appointed a solicitor to act for him in a personal injury claim. The Court held that PIAB must recognise his choice of legal representation and correspond with his solicitor. It said PIAB may also send the claimant copies of letters sent to the solicitor to keep him informed.
O’Brien alleged that an overhead line carrying meat carcasses collapsed at the premises where he worked on 5 November 2001, striking his back and causing injuries. He claimed he was off work for about four months, later returned with reduced output, and continued to experience pain. These were his claims, not findings made in this appeal.
In August 2004, as the three-year limitation period was approaching, O’Brien instructed a solicitor and signed an authority allowing the solicitor to act for him in dealings with PIAB. PIAB nevertheless wrote directly to O’Brien and told his solicitor it would not deal directly with solicitors, although it would send them copies of correspondence. O’Brien began judicial review proceedings. After a medical report arrived, PIAB registered his claim on 22 October 2004, making it unnecessary to pursue an order requiring registration.
The High Court declared that PIAB’s refusal to act on the authority, while corresponding directly with O’Brien and copying his solicitor, breached section 7 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 or lacked authority under another provision of the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed that order and dismissed PIAB’s appeal. The judgment addressed that single issue; the claimant’s cross-appeal concerning certain costs was left for consideration at a later stage.
PIAB argued that direct contact supported efficient claims processing and was within its statutory powers. The Court rejected that position. It held that the Act did not exclude lawyers from acting for claimants and did not give PIAB authority to refuse to correspond with an appointed legal representative. The Court also noted that the PIAB process could have serious consequences, including potential costs consequences if a claimant rejected an assessment and later failed to obtain a greater award in court.
The ruling did not prevent PIAB from keeping claimants informed. It could send a claimant a copy of correspondence sent to their solicitor at the same time. The Court’s decision concerned the authority of PIAB’s policy and O’Brien’s representation; it did not determine the merits or value of his injury claim.