The Court of Appeal increased the damages awarded to Denise Rowley for a wrist fracture sustained on holiday, finding that the High Court’s €5,000 award for future pain and suffering was disproportionately low. It substituted €15,000 for that part of the award and left the €20,000 award for pain and suffering to date unchanged.
In a judgment delivered on 4 June 2019, the court also included €1,060 in agreed special damages, bringing the adjusted total for general and special damages to €36,060. It allowed the appeal and varied the damages to that extent.
Rowley’s claim arose from a fall on 18 May 2008 while she was descending a ramp at a hotel in Gran Canaria as she and her sister prepared to leave for the airport. She injured her right wrist while trying to break her fall. She also reported back tenderness, but the medical reports did not mention a back injury and the judgment said it was not significant in the case.
Liability had been withdrawn when the case came to trial, so the High Court hearing concerned the assessment of damages. The only witness was Rowley, and two medical reports from an orthopaedic surgeon were admitted. The High Court awarded €20,000 for pain and suffering to date and €5,000 for future pain and suffering, alongside the agreed €1,060 special damages, for a total of €26,060.
The medical evidence described an undisplaced fracture near the end of the right radius, treated in hospital in Gran Canaria. Rowley was not kept in hospital, returned home by air and wore a cast for six weeks, followed by some physiotherapy. She did not undergo surgery. A later report said the fracture had healed satisfactorily but recorded continuing discomfort, reduced grip strength and impaired wrist function. The surgeon considered the symptoms and functional limitation permanent and noted a small risk of post-traumatic arthritis.
The appeal court said the €20,000 award for past pain and suffering was low but not disproportionately low, given the fracture and treatment. It concluded that the ongoing symptoms, Rowley’s age and the permanent reduction in function made the future award inadequate.
The judgment also recorded that the respondent had tendered €36,500 in compensation in November 2011 and that Rowley had not beaten the tender. The High Court order was unclear about the applicable costs scale and whether the respondent recovered costs after the tender. The appeal judgment varied the damages; it did not resolve those uncertainties in the perfected order.