The High Court has provisionally refused an insurer’s request to include a 50:50 liability split in the order striking out Daniel Kuczak’s settled personal injuries case, saying the term could prejudice the Department of Social Protection’s right to reimbursement without its input.
Mr Justice Twomey delivered the judgment on 29 March 2022. The judgment says Mr Kuczak was injured while changing tyres on an agricultural vehicle at Treacy Tyres (Portumna) Limited’s premises. His claim against the company settled before it was due to be heard in Galway.
The parties agreed a settlement of €120,000, with the defendant to pay Mr Kuczak’s legal costs separately. The insurer also asked the court to record that the parties had agreed to a 50:50 split of liability and causation. The Department had paid about €90,000 in disability or other loss-of-earnings benefits following the injuries.
The court said the proposed split could be relied on to seek a reduction in the insurer’s repayment to the Department from €90,000 to €45,000 under section 343R of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. But the split arose from a private settlement agreement, not a finding after evidence had been tested at a hearing. The Department was not a party to the case and had not been represented in the settlement negotiations.
Mr Justice Twomey refused to include the 50:50 term, concluding that it should not be given the status of a court order where it could prejudice the Department’s reimbursement rights without its consent. He also rejected the alternative of merely noting the agreed split, finding that a note would not meet the statutory requirement for an order of the court.
The refusal is provisional. At the parties’ request, the court adjourned finalisation of the entire order until 29 April 2022 to allow the insurer to establish the Minister for Social Protection’s position. The judge said the court would revisit the refusal if evidence of the Minister’s consent to the term were provided. He also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Minister and gave the Minister liberty to apply.
The judgment does not record whether the Minister later consented or what final order was made.