The Court of Appeal allowed Liam Buckley’s appeal over damages and costs following a jury trial arising from his arrest on George’s Street, Drogheda, on 24 September 2011. The court set aside the jury’s assessment and substituted an award of €17,500 in general damages after applying equal liability between the parties.
At the High Court trial, Mr Buckley’s claims for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery were unsuccessful. The jury found for him on negligence but attributed 69% contributory negligence to him. It assessed damages at €16,875, leaving a judgment of €5,231.25 after that reduction. The High Court also awarded him costs on the District Court scale, limited to a two-day hearing.
On appeal, Mr Buckley challenged the damages as inadequate, the 69% apportionment as excessive, and the costs order. The Court of Appeal held that the jury’s damages award was disproportionate to his injuries and amounted to an error of law. It assessed his general damages at €35,000 before contributory negligence.
The court described his injury as a non-displaced fracture of the left lateral malleolus, with a mild ankle strain. He wore a cast and used crutches for six weeks, then had physiotherapy. He reported symptoms lasting about two years, and the court considered that they could continue for around three years. The court noted that he had made a reasonable recovery and was not shown to be curtailed in work or leisure activities.
The Court of Appeal also found the jury’s 69% assessment grossly excessive. It said the evidence did not establish how or when the ankle injury occurred. The court accepted that Mr Buckley’s resistance to arrest contributed to the fall, but said he had raised his arms to avoid being handcuffed and had not acted aggressively. Because the evidence did not allow different degrees of fault to be established, the court applied the statutory rule of equal apportionment. That reduced the €35,000 damages assessment to €17,500.
On costs, the court held that the award fell within section 17(3) of the Courts Act 1981, as substituted by the Courts Act 1991. Mr Buckley was entitled to the lesser of the amount of his damages or the costs calculated as if the claim had been brought and pursued in the Circuit Court over two days. The trial judge’s two-day limit was not challenged on appeal.