The High Court rejected a Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) assessment of €20,000 in general damages, plus €1,187 for special damages, fees and expenses, in a personal injury claim brought for a minor. The court said the assessment did not reflect the full value of the claim in light of continuing problems with the girl’s left ankle.
The girl was injured in a road traffic accident in September 2017. Her mother, acting as her next friend, initially instructed a solicitor to accept PIAB’s assessment. PIAB acknowledged that acceptance in October 2018 and closed its file, leaving court approval as the outstanding step because the claimant was a minor.
After obtaining further legal advice, the mother sought additional medical reports about the ankle. Reports from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, obtained in February and March 2019, said surgery might be required in a small proportion of cases involving ankle instability. The surgeon said the decision depended on the frequency of instability and its effect on daily and recreational activities. The judgment also noted that the ankle continued to affect the girl’s participation in sport.
The mother then asked the court to reject the assessment she had previously accepted. The High Court held that the earlier acceptance did not bind the minor because, under section 35 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, an assessment accepted on a minor’s behalf does not become binding unless and until the court approves it.
The court said the application should ordinarily have been brought in the Circuit Court: the total assessment was €21,187, within that court’s stated €60,000 jurisdiction for personal injury proceedings. To avoid requiring a fresh application, however, the judge took the unusual step of accepting jurisdiction in the High Court. He found the medical reports showed the assessment fell short of the claim’s full value and ordered that it be rejected. A certified copy of the order would allow PIAB to issue an authorisation for legal proceedings.
The judge said a trial award might exceed €20,000 but questioned whether it would exceed the Circuit Court’s €60,000 limit, referring to figures for similar injuries in the 2016 Book of Quantum. The choice of jurisdiction was for the mother, on legal advice, and the ruling was not an endorsement of bringing proceedings in the High Court.
The court made no order on the costs of the application. It said the need for the application could have been avoided if the assessment had been rejected from the outset, and it would be unfair to require the respondent to pay those costs.