The High Court has awarded Bridget Delaney 60% of her costs after dismissing her judicial review challenge to the Personal Injury Guidelines. The costs ruling does not change the earlier decision rejecting her challenge.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the applicant was unsuccessful in the proceedings, but found they concerned issues of general public importance and had been brought in the public interest. The case was treated as a lead case among numerous similar applications.
The court noted that the Guidelines had reduced the level of damages that could be awarded for a broad category of injuries. Delaney’s submissions cited figures provided by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board showing its general damages assessments were down by an average of 46% in the period from the Guidelines’ introduction to the end of September 2021, compared with assessments in 2020. The judge said the Guidelines’ effects extended beyond litigation and could influence settlements before claims reached the Board.
The ruling said the case concerned delegated legislation and separation of powers. While those legal principles were well established, their application to the Judicial Council Act 2019 was novel. The judge had previously concluded that section 90 of that Act set out principles and policies for drawing up the Guidelines and that provisions of the Act preserved judicial independence.
The Personal Injuries Assessment Board and the Judicial Council, although successful, did not seek their costs against Delaney. Ireland and the Attorney General did not press for their own costs, but argued she should not receive costs or should receive only a portion.
The judge ordered that Delaney receive 60% of her costs relating to the judicial review, including reserved costs and the costs of her unsuccessful application for the judge to recuse himself. He said the recusal application was appropriate because it raised an issue that would have to be addressed. The number of Senior Counsel instructed, including her request for a certificate for three, was left to be determined if the parties could not agree. The matter was listed for 29 July 2022 for final orders.