The High Court declared that the Personal Injuries Assessment Board acted in breach of section 7 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, or without authority under another provision of the Act, when it declined to act on an authorisation dated 16 August 2004 and corresponded directly with applicant Declan O’Brien, copying his solicitors.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin made the declaration in a judgment dated 11 March 2005, after adjourning the matter following an earlier judgment on 21 January. The adjournment was to allow counsel to agree a draft declaration, but they could not reach agreement. The court therefore settled the form of the order and addressed costs.
The judge said the dispute had concerned the Board’s authority under the Act as a whole, not only whether its conduct was beyond the powers in section 7. He directed that the order record that, in light of the declaration, the court did not need to rule on the remaining issues in the agreed list.
The applicant’s counsel said the declaration was not intended to prevent the Board from sending a claimant copies of notices required under section 30 as well as serving the applicant’s solicitor. The judge described that approach as reasonable in light of the background facts. But he declined to give guidance governing other cases or make a broader declaration. He said the decision was based on the facts and issues argued in this case, while the facts, conduct and wording of any authority could differ in other cases. The general scope of section 30 had not been specifically argued.
On costs, the applicant was awarded the costs of the application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings on 4 October 2004, the three-day substantive hearing and taking judgment on 25 January 2005. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs for the intervening applications concerning amendment of the proceedings, mandamus and the Law Society’s application to join as amicus curiae or intervene. The judge cited the urgency of the case, confusion and lack of agreement about the Board’s undertaking, difficulty framing the issues, and the Law Society’s assistance to the court.