Judgment: 2024-02-15 · Court archive

High Court refuses Bus Éireann request to add earnings term to injury settlement order

Mr Justice Twomey rejected the proposed term, saying the court had not determined whether the settled claim included loss of earnings. He also highlighted conflicting High Court decisions and asked the registrar to send the judgment to the Minister for Social Protection.

High Court · [2024] IEHC 84

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jason Moloney (Appellant)
  • Department of Social Protection
  • Mr Justice Twomey
What

Mr Justice Twomey rejected the proposed term, saying the court had not determined whether the settled claim included loss of earnings. He also highlighted conflicting High Court decisions and asked the registrar to send the judgment to the Minister for Social Protection.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Twomey said the court had not heard evidence or decided whether there was a loss-of-earnings claim. He held that a statement agreed by the settling parties should not be placed in a court order where it could prejudice the Department, which was not a party to the case. He said the Department’s recovery of benefits could otherwise be affected under section 343R(2) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.

The High Court has refused Bus Éireann’s request to include a statement about loss of earnings in an order recording the settlement of Jason Moloney’s personal injury appeal. The court said the proposed statement had not been determined at a hearing and could affect the Department of Social Protection’s recovery of benefits paid to a claimant.

Mr Moloney had appealed the Circuit Court’s dismissal of his personal injury claim against Bus Éireann. On 29 January 2024, the High Court was told the appeal could be struck out, existing orders vacated and no order made as to costs. Bus Éireann agreed to pay Mr Moloney €10,000 as an all-in settlement, including legal costs.

On 1 February, with both parties’ consent, Bus Éireann asked the High Court to add a term stating that there was no claim for loss of earnings, or that the settlement did not reflect such a claim. The court granted the unopposed request to strike out the proceedings and vacate previous orders, but refused the additional term.

Mr Justice Twomey said the court had not heard evidence or decided whether there was a loss-of-earnings claim. He held that a statement agreed by the settling parties should not be placed in a court order where it could prejudice the Department, which was not a party to the case. He said the Department’s recovery of benefits could otherwise be affected under section 343R(2) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.

The judge acknowledged that another High Court decision, Wilson v Leonardi, had reached a contrary view to his earlier decisions, including Kuczak v Treacy Tyres (No. 2). He said the conflict had left trial judges without a uniform approach to these settlement orders and that an appellate decision could clarify the law. The judgment does not itself resolve that wider legal conflict.

Mr Justice Twomey noted that the Department could not appeal an order in proceedings to which it was not a party. He said the Minister might seek a declaration in appropriate proceedings on whether section 343R(2) applies to orders made when personal injury claims settle. The court asked the registrar to provide a copy of the judgment to the Minister. The judgment does not state that Bus Éireann has appealed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review