Recent jurisprudence of the Court ofAppeal (the “Court”) shows a pattern of reducing awards of damages from theHigh Court. The Court has stated that it has found some High Court awards to beexcessive and outside the permissible range of damages typically granted. Ithas also been critical of the lack of objective reasoning in reaching awardsand of the method of assessment of damages.
Helpfully, the Court has givenguidance as to how damages should be assessed.
In Payne v Nugent , the HighCourt had awarded €65,000 for general damages in a road traffic claim where aback seat passenger was injured when a car was rear ended. On appeal, theinjuries in this case were held to be relatively modest and damages werereduced to €35,000. The principles outlined by the Court in deciding to reducethe award are of interest. It held that it is important that compensation inrespect of pain and suffering should be reasonable and proportionate and thatan award of one-sixth of the top end of damages was not proportionate in thiscase.
In Nolan v Wirenski , theCourt again spoke about damages having to be just and reasonable and assessedby reference to a spectrum of damages from minor to catastrophic/life changinginjuries that have a cap of €450,000. The Court held that damages shouldbe:
- Fair to the plaintiff and the defendant
- Objectively reasonable in light of the common good and social conditions in the State
- Proportionate within the scheme of awards for personal injuries generally
It was held that the task of theCourt is to objectively assess injuries against a spectrum and outline thereasons for the decision.
In the earlier Supreme Courtdecision of M.N. v S.M. , Ms Justice Denham (as she was then) advisedthat damages can only be fair and just if they are proportionate not only tothe injuries sustained by the plaintiff but also proportionate when assessedagainst the level of the damages commonly awarded to other plaintiffs who havesustained injuries that are of a significantly greater or lesser magnitude. Shesaid it is important that minor injuries attract appropriately modest damages,middling injuries moderate damages and more severe injuries damages of a levelwhich are clearly distinguishable in terms of quantum from those that fall intoother lesser categories.
An updated Book of Quantum has beenpublished since these decisions were handed down. However, this is unlikely tohave a major impact on this trend in awards of damages as the Court is of theview that, independently of the Book of Quantum, it is also appropriate toexamine the award of damages by reference to where the injuries fall on thespectrum.
Going forward, it is expected thatthe approach of the Court will be to locate the seriousness of the case at anappropriate point somewhere on a scale that includes everything from the mostminor to the most serious injuries and award damagesaccordingly.
Contributedby FionaBarry
