The High Court has ordered Daniel Kuczak’s settled personal injury proceedings against Treacy Tyres (Portumna) Limited to be struck out, without including an agreed term that would have apportioned liability equally between them.
In a supplementary judgment delivered on 9 November 2022, Mr Justice Twomey lifted a stay on finalising the order after hearing submissions from the Minister for Social Protection. The Minister did not consent to the proposed 50:50 term. The court said the remaining step was to perfect the strike-out order without that apportionment.
The dispute concerned section 343R of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, which provides for recovery of certain benefits paid to an injured person. The judgment says the plaintiff and the defendant’s insurer had asked the court to include a 50:50 liability split in a consent order. The proposed term was intended to reduce by €45,000 the insurer’s reimbursement to the State for benefits paid to Mr Kuczak, which the judgment puts at about €90,000.
In an earlier judgment in the case, the High Court refused to include the term. It then delayed finalising the strike-out order so the Minister could be consulted. The Minister’s counsel submitted that section 343R(2) did not apply to settlements and that a consent order agreed by the parties was not an “order of a court” for that provision. The insurer’s counsel made no submissions on those points of interpretation, according to the supplementary judgment.
Mr Justice Twomey agreed with the Minister’s position that even her consent to the proposed split would not turn it into an order of a court for the purposes of the section. He also recorded the Minister’s agreement that a liability split merely noted in a consent order would not qualify.
The judge stressed that this was not an appellate court’s definitive interpretation: an appellate court could reach a different conclusion. The judgment said the insurer or Mr Kuczak could appeal the refusal and the interpretation. It noted that the court was not aware of appeals from similar High Court refusals. The order resolved the outstanding step in this case; the judgment did not establish an appellate ruling on the section’s meaning.