The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal over a €250,000 award for future loss of earnings and sent that issue back to the High Court for reassessment on the evidence already given at trial.
The appeal by Anne Callinan and Tom Callinan concerned only that part of the damages awarded to Dolores O’Doherty in her personal injury action. The defendants had conceded liability for a road traffic accident on 14 June 2014. The High Court had awarded total damages of €530,860, including the future earnings sum.
O’Doherty, a school secretary, was injured when her car was rear-ended while she was stopped in traffic. She developed coccydynia, a painful condition affecting the coccyx, and had not returned to her job by the time of the High Court hearing. Medical advisers then accepted that she remained in constant pain. The trial judge found she was likely to resume non-sedentary work on a part-time basis, but did not clearly state whether she would return to the school, later work full time, or remain part time until retirement.
The defendants argued that the award lacked a clear actuarial basis. They said the calculation should account for the possibility of returning to the school, where her stated hourly rate was €17, rather than using an open-market rate of €10.50. They also challenged the period used and the deduction for the contingencies identified in Reddy v Bates. O’Doherty’s counsel disputed that she was likely to return to the school and supported the trial judge’s assessment.
The Court of Appeal said the actuarial report offered several scenarios, with different assumptions about working hours, pay and retirement age. The trial judge had not identified which scenario she used, whether she expected a return to the school, or the starting figure and percentage deduction behind the €250,000 award. The appeal court said it would involve guesswork to reconstruct the calculation and that it could not make the missing factual findings itself.
The court therefore allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the High Court solely for assessment of future loss of earnings, based on the evidence already heard, unless there is good reason to the contrary. It did not determine the amount of any replacement award. The three judges’ provisional view was that appeal costs should be reserved to the High Court hearing; either party had 28 days to argue otherwise.