The High Court has held that a consent order apportioning liability in a settled personal injury case can qualify as a “court order” under the law governing recovery of certain social welfare payments. Mr Justice Kevin Cross said the legislation did not require the order to follow a contested hearing or a formal written judgment.
The ruling arose after counsel asked the court to strike out Maurice Matthews’s proceedings against Eircom by consent, award costs to the plaintiff to be assessed if not agreed, and determine that the case had settled on a 50/50 basis. The judgment, delivered on 2 July 2021, addressed the legal basis for making that determination. It does not state the amount of any settlement or set out the underlying injury allegations.
Section 343R of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 provides for recovery by the Minister of specified social welfare benefits paid to injured people. The judgment explained that where those benefits exceed compensation ordered or assessed, the compensator’s liability is limited to the amount of that compensation. It said the question was whether a consent order could provide the required court order and liability determination.
Mr Justice Cross said the High Court’s established practice since 2014 had been to make such determinations by consent. He disagreed with a judgment delivered days earlier by Mr Justice Twomey in two other cases. That judge had refused applications for orders based on settlements, citing the absence of tested evidence and the Department’s lack of consent, and had considered an independent determination necessary.
Mr Justice Cross held that the statute did not limit “order” to one made after a hearing. He also concluded that it created no right for the Minister to be joined or notified in every personal injury case. The Minister could seek to be heard in an individual case, he said, with the decision left to the trial judge.
The judgment discussed the requested 50/50 determination but does not record in its text a separate operative order striking out Mr Matthews’s proceedings, awarding costs, or formally declaring the settlement split. Its stated conclusion was that consent orders may support determinations under section 343R, and that it would continue the existing practice. It also said a judge could require a hearing or Ministerial notice in a particular case, but that there was no general legal obligation to take those steps.