The High Court has rejected two judicial review applications challenging the Personal Injuries Assessment Board’s decisions on solicitors’ fees in personal injury claims.
The applicants, Grzegorz Plewa and Krzysztof Giniewicz, argued that the Board acted unreasonably and failed to meet its obligations under the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. The court heard that both men were Polish nationals living and working in Ireland when they were injured in separate accidents. Their compensation assessments were accepted by the defendants, and neither applicant challenged the amount of compensation.
The dispute concerned legal fees claimed for work on the Board applications. The Board allowed €350 for translation services in each case. It allowed none of Mr Plewa’s €2,420 legal-fee claim and allowed €484, including VAT, towards Mr Giniewicz’s €1,331 claim. The Board said Mr Giniewicz’s case involved identifying potentially liable parties, which it considered required legal advice.
The applicants argued that the Board had applied a blanket policy against legal fees, had not adequately explained its decisions and was objectively biased against solicitors. They relied in part on remarks by Board officials at an Oireachtas committee meeting. The Board said it assessed each claim on its supporting material and exercised its discretion under the legislation.
Mr Justice Ryan said section 44 allowed the Board to include all or part of fees it considered reasonably and necessarily incurred in complying with the Act. It did not give claimants an automatic right to recover legal costs. The judge found no evidence that the Board’s guidelines prevented individual consideration of the claims.
The judge also found the fee claims lacked specific supporting detail. The solicitors had not provided itemised bills showing the work done, time spent or basis for the amounts claimed. In that context, the Board’s explanations, though general, were sufficient to show why it allowed only part or none of the legal fees. The court also rejected the arguments based on the applicants’ nationality and language needs, noting that translation costs had been allowed in full.
On bias, the judge concluded that a fair reading of the committee remarks did not show that the Board believed legal advice was never needed or that legal fees were never allowable. He found no unlawful fettering of discretion, failure to give reasons, unreasonableness, breach of fair procedures or objective bias.
The court dismissed both applications for judicial review. It did not revisit the compensation assessments, which were not challenged.