ARTICLE
7 August 2015

Proposed Changes To The Provision Of Periodic Payments In Catastrophic Injury Claims

M
Matheson

Contributor

Established in 1825 in Dublin, Ireland and with offices in Cork, London, New York, Palo Alto and San Francisco, more than 700 people work across Matheson’s six offices, including 96 partners and tax principals and over 470 legal and tax professionals. Matheson services the legal needs of internationally focused companies and financial institutions doing business in and from Ireland. Our clients include over half of the world’s 50 largest banks, 6 of the world’s 10 largest asset managers, 7 of the top 10 global technology brands and we have advised the majority of the Fortune 100.
On 27 May 2015, the Government published the draft heads of the Civil Liability (Amendment Bill) 2015.
Ireland Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On 27 May 2015, the Government published the draft heads of the Civil Liability (Amendment Bill) 2015.  The Bill introduces a new model to allow for the provision of periodic payment orders in cases before the Irish Courts where a plaintiff has suffered catastrophic injuries. 

The Bill sets out the circumstances in which a trial judge in the High Court will be entitled to order that periodic payments be made by a defendant, other than a state authority.  It is anticipated that the Bill will be enacted before the end of this year.

It should be noted that plaintiff representatives have expressed concern about the Bill, in particular the proposal to link future payments to the Irish Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices.  The Index measures inflation over a broad range of consumer goods and will not accurately reflect the greater increase in wage inflation for carers' salaries or for medical services.  It is argued that this will result in plaintiffs not being able to meet the cost of care into the future and therefore, many plaintiffs will continue to seek lump-sum awards. 

The attraction for plaintiffs to seek lump-sum awards is motivated in part by the recent High Court decision in Russell v HSE.  This case indicated that awards for future special damages should only be discounted by 1% (previously 3%) to allow for the income that would be generated by a plaintiff who receives a lump-sum to cover future costs.  In effect, a plaintiff may receive a multi-million euro award in 2015 in respect of payments that may not need to be made until decades into the future.  The discount is intended to reflect the fact that the plaintiff gets a benefit, by being able to invest that sum of money until it is needed.  Defence practitioners, and many actuaries and economists, argue that the discount should be significantly higher.  This decision is currently under appeal and was heard by the Court of Appeal on 7 July 2015.  Judgment was reserved.  An update will be published in relation to the judgment as soon as it is delivered. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More