The Court of Appeal made no order as to the costs of an appeal that reduced a personal injury award, citing the defendants’ failure to assist the High Court on how to apply the Personal Injuries Guidelines. It also refused the defendants’ request for a costs differential order.
In a costs ruling delivered on 18 July 2024, Mr Justice Noonan said the High Court’s award of €84,277 had been reduced on appeal to €50,287.70. The principal judgment had assessed damages at €59,162 before applying an unappealed finding that the plaintiff was 15% contributorily negligent.
The appeal court had found that the High Court’s award was disproportionate and made without regard to the Guidelines. In the costs ruling, Mr Justice Noonan said the need for the appeal arose in significant measure because the defendants had given the High Court no assistance on the correct approach to assessing damages under the Guidelines. He said that, had the judge received that assistance, the appeal might have been avoided.
The defendants sought their appeal costs, relying on a pre-appeal offer of €54,538 plus one day’s High Court costs. The plaintiff had offered to accept €75,000 plus her costs. The final award was below the defendants’ offer, which would ordinarily have supported an order for their appeal costs. The plaintiff argued that the defendants’ appeal raised issues they had not addressed at trial. The court said that argument could have been pursued in the substantive appeal but could not be raised for the first time in the costs submissions.
Considering the parties’ conduct and the unusual circumstances, the court ordered that each side bear its own appeal costs.
The defendants also sought a costs differential because the damages fell within the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. The court declined to make that order. It found that the full value of the claim before the contributory negligence reduction was close enough to the Circuit Court limit that it was reasonable to start proceedings in the High Court, where the ultimate award might have fallen. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to her High Court costs, calculated on the scale for a Circuit Court action.