Reform of the Insurance Industry in Ireland

Kivaro

Ireland has one of the most generous compensation systems in Europe. One example is that whiplash-type soft tissue damage awards in Ireland are typically over 4 times higher than in the UK for similar claims. Knowing that some Irish people who file compensation claims have some neck on them due the nature of their claims, are these necks really 4 times more "precious" than British necks? There are numerous other examples of illogical compensation awards that we read almost daily on here and on newspapers.

According to an Irish Times article, the Judicial Council met today at 10:30 am to consider draft guidelines that will "set out the level of damages courts can award in personal injuries cases". If enacted correctly, this could be the first step to insurance reform. Unsurprisingly we should expect major push back from Irish legal firms in light of the fact that legal bills accounted for a third of the average €71,050 settlement of litigated motor injury cases in Ireland in the 5 years up to 2019.

So with the EU investigating the Irish Insurance Industry for operating like a cartel, and with the Central Bank review of the industry for dual pricing of Irish customers, and with the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission investigation resulting in the conclusion that there were "reasonable grounds" to suspect that a number of Irish motor insurers broke antitrust laws, I think that it is high time to reform this industry once and for all.

BattleCorp

I think anyone expecting payouts for whiplash etc. to be slashed by 75% to bring them in line with the UK will be sorely disappointed.

There'll be very little changes arising out of this.

cnocbui

You can't reform anything significant in Ireland. Too many vested interests. The legal system is a mess, the insurance industry is a gargantuan rip-off - good luck getting anything changed.

Many years ago, there was a news article stating that the profits made by the Irish vehicle insurers exceeded the combined profits of vehicle insurers in the UK.

randd1

- When a claim is brought forward, the person bringing the claim must be the one to pay their solicitors. Solicitors should not be paid via costs awarded by the courts. That should put off a few people.

- Emotional trauma cannot be considered for minor physical injuries (cuts, scrapes that require stitches, severe bruising, whiplash). Payment for minor physical injuries will purely be double the cost of the associated medical costs where receipts have been issued by the attending doctor. No receipt/invoice, no payment.

- All payments are limited to €10,000, with the exception of severe injury that effect work/normal life but are not life threatening (broken legs, broken arm, broken collar bone, dislocated shoulder etc), but . In order for an injury to be deemed to such severity, said injury must be certified so by two different consultants who sign off personally on the injury and the scale of the injury received. Payments are limited to €50,000.

- In the event of extreme life altering injury (broken neck, brain damage, broken spine, shattered pelvis), payment up to €1,000,000 is authorised. In order for an injury to be deemed to such severity, said injury must be certified so by two different consultants who sign off personally on the injury and the scale of the injury received, and the long term effect is will have on the person.

- A claims register is to be created. All claims, including false or fraudulent cases, will be put on the register and the record and outcome of the case as directed by a judge would be available to any part in future claims.

- All fraudulent claims would be punished by the claimant paying all legal fees, court costs, and a fine of two months (8 weeks) income.

- Solicitors who knowingly bring forward claims they know to be fraudulent are penalised between fines of €10,000 and losing their licence to practice.

- A rota of judges is to be created to prevent as much as possible the cases involving the same judges/solicitors.

- All medical experts who falsify records lose their licence.

CageWager

Its a sad state of affairs when you live in a country where your first car is worth less than the annual insurance premium on said car.

cnocbui

CageWager wrote: »

Its a sad state of affairs when you live in a country where your first car is worth less than the annual insurance premium on said car.

When I got my first car at 18, my car registration fee of about €178 included 3rd party liability so I didn't need to get insurance. Petrol was about €0.18 litre, too. All I really had to worry about was getting my driving licence and the money to buy a car with.

is_that_so

cnocbui wrote: »

You can't reform anything significant in Ireland. Too many vested interests. The legal system is a mess, the insurance industry is a gargantuan rip-off - good luck getting anything changed.

Many years ago, there was a news article stating that the profits made by the Irish vehicle insurerers exceeded the combined profits of vehicle insurers in the UK.

Actually a lot of it is down to the values in the Book of Quantum, which are currently under review. If they approve the proposals we can probably expect to see changes from later this year.

Gatling

Seen a case recently where a part time model walked across s dual carriageway and got hit by a car ,came away a millionaire several times over thanks to a judge.
There is zero responsibility for so called victims

kildare lad

Gatling wrote: »

Seen a case recently where a part time model walked across s dual carriageway and got hit by a car ,came away a millionaire several times over thanks to a judge.
There is zero responsibility for so called victims

3.2 million to be precise

Signore Fancy Pants

Why should compensation pay outs be compared to the UK? If the UK were higher, would they still be equated?

I know someone who was involved in a car crash in 2013, not their fault. They sustained genuine soft tissue damage and have been in significant pain ever since. Every facet of their life has changed due to it and requires medical intervention at least twice a year and will do so for the rest of their life. The compensation awarded did not adequately reflect the effects of the injury, negative changes to lifestyle nor the fact that this is a lifelong condition which will not resolve itself.

I'm all for capped compensation for "less than legitimate" claims, however, genuine ones should not be lumped in with them.

I'm very sceptical that if compensation pay outs are significantly reduced, that insurance premiums will also significantly reduce, which is one of their suggestions.

BattleCorp

is_that_so wrote: »

Actually a lot of it is down to the values in the Book of Quantum, which are currently under review. If they approve the proposals we can probably expect to see changes from later this year.

The values in the Book of Quantum are actually derived by examining the awards made in court for similar injuries. This is a bit simplified but for example, if the courts commonly award €50k for a broken leg, then that's what goes into the Book of Quantum. If the courts start commonly awarding more for a broken leg, e.g. €75k, then that is the figure that gets put into the Book of Quantum the next time it is revised. So it's the courts that are driving the amounts laid down in the Book of Quantum and not the other way around.

BattleCorp

randd1 wrote: »

- When a claim is brought forward, the person bringing the claim must be the one to pay their solicitors. Solicitors should not be paid via costs awarded by the courts. That should put off a few people.

Are you saying that if someone is awarded €75k in the High Court, that they should pay their costs out of that €75k?

If that's what you mean, that wouldn't work. What's the point in being awarded €75k and having to pay maybe €50k, €60k etc. out of that payment? What happens if the costs are more than the award because that can sometimes happen?

- Emotional trauma cannot be considered for minor physical injuries (cuts, scrapes that require stitches, severe bruising, whiplash).

Cuts and scrapes and stitches heal. Sometimes whiplash doesn't heal. It can be a lifelong problem.

My problem is exaggeration. Many of the claims I have to deal with involve cuts and scrapes and injured parties send in medical reports that read like a script. They all claim sensitivity, pins and needles, distress looking at the scar etc. I've had a pile of stitches in my lifetime and I must be lucky that I never had sensitivity where I got the stitches after a week or two had passed. I've fcukers claiming that it's still sensitive and causing them problems two years after they had the stitches.

Payment for minor physical injuries will purely be double the cost of the associated medical costs where receipts have been issued by the attending doctor. No receipt/invoice, no payment.

If only it was like this in real life. I see PIAB issuing awards for between €15k and €20k to people who get injured and are only away from work for one week.

- All payments are limited to €10,000, with the exception of severe injury that effect work/normal life but are not life threatening (broken legs, broken arm, broken collar bone, dislocated shoulder etc), but . In order for an injury to be deemed to such severity, said injury must be certified so by two different consultants who sign off personally on the injury and the scale of the injury received. Payments are limited to €50,000.

This I wouldn't agree with. Some injuries are worth more.

And getting two different consultants to sign off on injuries is only a little bit more difficult than the current situation where the injured party gets one consultant to give them a report. And here's the thing. I am 99% certain that I could make an appointment with a consultant, tell them I was in an accident (even though I wasn't), pretend I was injured and get a favourable medical report from them.

- In the event of extreme life altering injury (broken neck, brain damage, broken spine, shattered pelvis), payment up to €1,000,000 is authorised. In order for an injury to be deemed to such severity, said injury must be certified so by two different consultants who sign off personally on the injury and the scale of the injury received, and the long term effect is will have on the person.

If you have a broken neck, brain damage, or a broken spine, €1,000,000 won't go very far if you need life-long care. If a child is badly injured, you could be looking at between €10m and €20m for their care.

Claims are made up of two parts, general damages and special damages. General damages are for pain and suffering are capped at €450k here in Ireland.
Special damages are for out of pocket expenses, medical costs, lost wages, lost future wages etc. These are uncapped and when you see a huge award such as €10m for a kid with cerebral palsy, €450k is for pain and suffering and the rest is for past and future care.

- A claims register is to be created. All claims, including false or fraudulent cases, will be put on the register and the record and outcome of the case as directed by a judge would be available to any part in future claims.

Good idea. I would extend this register to also include claims that were settled 'out of court' because only about 5% of cases ever see the inside of a court.

- All fraudulent claims would be punished by the claimant paying all legal fees, court costs, and a fine of two months (8 weeks) income.

Good in theory but how does someone on the dole or with limited means pay maybe €200k in legal fees? The state will never get that money.

- Solicitors who knowingly bring forward claims they know to be fraudulent are penalised between fines of €10,000 and losing their licence to practice.

You won't get enough evidence to charge solicitors. In fairness, a solicitor can only go on what their client tells them. If their client tells them they are injured and it's x person's fault, the solicitor has to take them at their word. Solicitors don't investigate their clients to see if they are telling the truth.

To be fair, if a claim is very obviously fake, I think a solicitor would rather steer clear of it because if their client loses their case, it's unlikely the solicitor would be paid.

- A rota of judges is to be created to prevent as much as possible the cases involving the same judges/solicitors.

Not sure how this would work. There are only so many High Court judges so no matter how they rotate, they'll still be hearing personal injury cases.

- All medical experts who falsify records lose their licence.

How do you prove that?

Kivaro

According to the Independent this morning:
"Awards for minor whiplash injuries would be cut by up to 50% under proposals being examined by the judiciary."

Knowing that there are indeed genuine cases of serious whiplash injuries and they should be dealt with differently, I would prefer the awards to be reduced even further due to the fact that in a recent research report where they examined a number of court cases, there were zero (or close to zero) follow-ups with any form of therapy immediately after an award was given in court. In other words, when they got their cash, the physiotherapy sessions and doctor visits stopped in all of those cases that they examined.

Eggs For Dinner

Fraudulent claims are extremely difficult to prove. When an insurer is unable to do so, it must go down in the records as genuine. Putting a blatantly obvious dodgy claim on any sort of register, will open it up to all sorts legal action by anyone on it

Eggs For Dinner

Kivaro wrote: »

According to the Independent this morning:
"Awards for minor whiplash injuries would be cut by up to 50% under proposals being examined by the judiciary."

Knowing that there are indeed genuine cases of serious whiplash injuries and they should be dealt with differently, I would prefer the awards to be reduced even further due to the fact that in a recent research report where they examined a number of court cases, there were zero (or close to zero) follow-ups with any form of therapy immediately after an award was given in court. In other words, when they got their cash, the physiotherapy sessions and doctor visits stopped in all of those cases that they examined.

There needs to be a fine balance between adequately compensating a genuine case and making a chancer think twice about taking the risk. My suggestion would be for a basic cash settlement to be paid, in addition to paying for any ongoing treatment. The chancer won't be bothered with that

flazio

In my opinion successful claims shouldn't be fixed amounts for the victim to do as they please. It should be a system where a redress board gets invoiced for whatever treatment is required and coughs up that and nothing more.

Eggs For Dinner

flazio wrote: »

In my opinion successful claims shouldn't be fixed amounts for the victim to do as they please. It should be a system where a redress board gets invoiced for whatever treatment is required and coughs up that and nothing more.

You can't have a system where only direct costs are compensated. If someone causes you an injury, you are entitled for any settlement to include pain, suffering, loss of amenity and distress. It's the level of this amount needs addressing, along with the costs of the whole process

flazio

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

You can't have a system where only direct costs are compensated. If someone causes you an injury, you are entitled for any settlement to include pain, suffering, loss of amenity and distress. It's the level of this amount needs addressing, along with the costs of the whole process

To address those issues presumably means counselling. Counselling costs money. Bill the counselling costs to the redress settlers same as any physical bills.
Losses of earnings due to incapacity should be heavily audited and the details of this audit should go on public record when handing out judgement on compensation owed. The system needs to be more transparent if the general public is to trust it.

cnocbui

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

You can't have a system where only direct costs are compensated. If someone causes you an injury, you are entitled for any settlement to include pain, suffering, loss of amenity and distress. It's the level of this amount needs addressing, along with the costs of the whole process

Yes you can. Boo-hoo about the rest - tough cheese.

Eggs For Dinner

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes you can. Boo-hoo about the rest - tough cheese.

Well boo-hoo to you if you are unable to play with your kids because of pain, or go on holiday, do the garden, or the big one at the moment, lack of congress. If someone has caused you this, you're saying you would ignore it? Sure you would. The problem is the current levels being paid.

Nermal

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/senior-judges-argue-against-proposed-guidelines-on-personal-injury-awards-1.4486859

Reform is impossible, until the power to make PI awards is totally removed from judges - 'guidelines' which they cannot even bring themselves to sign up to are clearly not enough. They have repeatedly proved themselves unfit for the task.

Kivaro

Nermal wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/senior-judges-argue-against-proposed-guidelines-on-personal-injury-awards-1.4486859

Reform is impossible, until the power to make PI awards is totally removed from judges - 'guidelines' which they cannot even bring themselves to sign up to are clearly not enough. They have repeatedly proved themselves unfit for the task.

This is insane. It is like the foxes are creating the rules for the chicken coop. So according to the Times article:
"A number of senior higher court judges have circulated memos to colleagues arguing against proposed guidelines that would lead to reductions in personal injury awards."
And more:
"A collective memo from a number of judges experienced in personal injury cases arguing against, and a number of individual contributions have also been shared. Not a single memo in favour has emerged."

In order to have an air of impartiality over the revamping of personal injury awards in Ireland, the judges need to be taken out of the equation. This needs to be a legislative process and a legislative decision taken by government TDs whom the people elected to the Dail.

I am sure that you can make up your own minds on why the judges do not want any changes to the existing system of massive awards in this country. The legal system in Ireland is made up of a tight knit community where family members of judges could be working in law firms around the country. Don't forget that legal bills could account for a third or more of the settlements of litigated motor injury cases. Conflict of interest perhaps?

cnocbui

Nermal wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/senior-judges-argue-against-proposed-guidelines-on-personal-injury-awards-1.4486859

Reform is impossible, until the power to make PI awards is totally removed from judges - 'guidelines' which they cannot even bring themselves to sign up to are clearly not enough. They have repeatedly proved themselves unfit for the task.

In sensibly run countries, injury payments are defined by a schedule set down in legislation, Judges do not have the power to deviate from the schedule.

This country thrives on legal inefficiency. The Judges will never support change that diminishes their role or which might lead to lowered income for the legal profession in general.

I don't think there will be change. The Judiciary seem to back the government on all legal challenges based on constitutional grounds, giving the government near carte blanche to do whatever they like. So unless the government is willing to put up with losing out on some significant legal challenges, the judiciary have them over a barrel.

There should be protections and limits on liabilities for the medical profession. This would have the potential to lower professional insurance costs. I know a German gynaecologist who is qualified in obstetrics, and would have liked to practice in that field, but the insurance costs prohibited them from doing so. Ridiculous

El Gato De Negocios

There is a thread in AH currently and I've posted additional commentary there but suffice it to say, it's not a surprise. The compo gravy train is being driven by the legal fraternity, why on God's green earth would they bite the hand that feeds the?

They should have zero input into setting what is and isn't acceptable award amounts. Insurers should open their claims books to independent, medically qualified professionals to come to a fair consensus as to the gravity of "injuries" and how likely they are to cause any major issues for claimants.

Independent engineers should be tasked with extrapolating out the likelihood of there being damage to a passenger when there is little to no damage to vehicles that are hit.

People found to be making deliberately false or misleading claims should face heavy penalties and fines. Claimants aren't working? Deduct a portion from their social every week until the fines are paid.

Payments should benchmarked against comparative European countries like the UK, France and Germany.

The entire process should be completely and utterly set by people with no skin in the game, no insurers, no barristers or judges, just suitably qualified and experienced individuals from all aspects.

Until a full and impartial overhaul is conducted its going to be the same oul shyte.

angela1711

Wonder if you would all think the same if it was you or a close family member that was seriously injured due to no fault of their own.

My husband had a terrific car accident a few years ago. I nearly fainted when I got the call. All I can remember is that he was involved in a head on collision and the emergency services are about to cut him out of the car. I was getting ready to go to work, our son was only about 15 months at the time. I run out of the house and thankfully one of my colleagues was going to work, I spotted her car and stopped her. I was shaken so badly that I had to ask her to drive me to the hospital as I wouldn’t be able to drive myself.

I am not going to go into all the details of his many injuries but let me tell you over 3 years have passed and he is still in a very bad condition. He tried to return to work, unsuccessfully. The amount of pills that he takes on a daily basis could supply half of the town. I have to do everything in the house. He is severely depressed. He cannot bare the fact that I have to provide for our family. He is useless as a man in his own eyes. Consultants say that he would never be able to return to work. We argue pretty much everyday as it’s taking a toll on everyone. He once told me that if someone offered him a million euro he wouldn’t take it. There is no amount of money that can compensate him for what he has been through. He still needs at least 3 surgeries. Doctors keep saying that there is nothing more they can do for him. We had spend almost 20.000 on physiotherapy, prescriptions, psychologists, consultant visits, reports and various different treatments. There are no banks left that would lend us money. We are at the point where we are barely coping financially. We have to do some repairs to our car and I’ve been trying to save money for months.


It boils my blood to think that he may not even be properly compensated for what he, and our whole family had been through and what we will still have to endure for many years to come. I know that there are plenty of people taking a full piss of the system but there are others who’s lives are destroyed for good and those people need to be properly compensated.

suicide_circus

Judges totally out of control here, if the government fold on this it will be a significant blow to our democracy.

suicide_circus

angela1711 wrote: »

Wonder if you would all think the same if it was you or a close family member that was seriously injured due to no fault of their own.

My husband had a terrific car accident a few years ago...

No one has a problem with this kind of situation being handsomely compensated. It's the 5 boyos in the same car claiming 60k a piece for "soft tissue damage" after a 20km crash with a car driven by their buddy that's the problem.

maccored

i was in a car accident once - which was very minor. In a queue of traffic, car in front moved off then suddenly stopped. I tipped the bumper - but I was fit to actually rub the mark off it was so light a touch. i didnt even know there was a claim going in against me and the person in the other car agreed it was their fault as much as mine.

My own insurance company didnt ask anything, there was no investigation or questions asked by the other insurance company but yet for 2 years I couldnt change insurer due to the claim (which eventually was withdrawn) plus my premium doubled . I found out about it when i went to renew. It was as if, to the insurance companies involved, i wasnt worth informing - nor was it worth asking me my side of what had happened. They still made sure I'd no option but to pay them if I wanted to stay on the road

enricoh

Pre covid there was perfectly good businesses closing up shop due to insurance costs. After covid there'll be many more that remain shuttered.
Next referendum has to be on compo levels if judges don't play ball, it's killing our competiveness. Leisure and hospitality especially need a break.

angela1711

suicide_circus wrote: »

No one has a problem with this kind of situation being handsomely compensated. It's the 5 boyos in the same car claiming 60k a piece for "soft tissue damage" after a 20km crash with a car driven by their buddy that's the problem.

I know that they are mostly taking about reducing compensation for “minor injury” but our solicitor still said that it would affect everyone. Of course the scenario that you describe is a pure joke on the system but it’s because of such people we are sitting down worrying sick that our house is eventually going to be taken away as there is only so much I can earn and so much debt I can pay for.

yabadabado

angela1711 wrote: »

Wonder if you would all think the same if it was you or a close family member that was seriously injured due to no fault of their own.

I don't think anyone has a problem when someone is compensated for injuries sustained .
If you are injuried or your property is damaged then it's only right to be fairly compensated.

The issues are with the people who are making fraudulent or frivolous claims and are paid out handsomely when in reality it's a scam or completely at odds with their injuries.

There are people in this country who are actively looking for ways to make claims with several payouts made over the years.

In this country it seems if you are injured because of your own stupidity the first thing to do is see who you can blame to get a few grand compo.

suicide_circus

Thats unfortunate but the rewards in this country are utterly insane and totally out of line with similar countries. They have to come down. Your solicitor, like the judges, has a personal interest in rewards remaining high.

Yurt2

New Zealand model please.

No-fault injury compensation for auto accidents rolled into motor tax and on fuel levies. Completely removes legal industry from the process as it is centrally administered.

Insuring the vehicle itself is not legally required.

I don't give fiddlers if someone's phone or laptop is insured, nor do I care if their Audi or Passat is written off or scratched. It's the people inside the vehicle the state should be concerned about, which the NZ system puts to the fore.

NZ, and some provinces in Canada operate this way and it works (the vast majority elect to take out insurance on the vehicle anyway, and it's affordable and no-nonsense).

If an Irish government tried to introduce this, the insurance lobby would go nuts and probably send out hit squads, because their rentier free-money scheme gig would be well and truly up.

Yurt2

yabadabado wrote: »

I don't think anyone has a problem when someone is compensated for injuries sustained .
If you are injuried or your property is damaged then it's only right to be fairly compensated.

The issues are with the people who are making fraudulent or frivolous claims and are paid out handsomely when in reality it's a scam or completely at odds with their injuries.

There are people in this country who are actively looking for ways to make claims with several payouts made over the years.

In this country it seems if you are injured because of your own stupidity the first thing to do is see who you can blame to get a few grand compo.

Research a couple of years back indicates that fraudulent or dubious claims add about 50 euro to peoples' car insurance annually. Not defending dubious claims, but given that there are billions of euro of car insurance premiums collected here annually, something entirely else is going on with the insurance sham in Ireland. Uncompetitive cartel behaviour.

And the lobby spends money hand over fist on both ads about dodgy claims, and on PR firms convincing policymakers that dodgy claims are the reason for the outrageous premiums. The problem, while doubtless there, is ridiculously overstated and designed to distract from sh*tty behaviour from the industry.

Not overtly having a go at you here, but you're not the only one that has swallowed that hook line and sinker.

fritzelly

Should be a disclaimer in any compensation rewards...

Should you have been where you were when it happened
Should you have been doing what you were doing when it happened
(and a good few other questions)

If the answer to any of the above is no then no payout and the solicitor wants his money thank you very much - just look at some of the ridiculous payouts because people are stupid or rather know how the law works and take advantage of it

Also should be made illegal for solicitors to chase clients to make a claim

FishOnABike

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

There needs to be a fine balance between adequately compensating a genuine case and making a chancer think twice about taking the risk. My suggestion would be for a basic cash settlement to be paid, in addition to paying for any ongoing treatment. The chancer won't be bothered with that

That would not be good for either the injured party or insurance companies.

The insurance companies would be left with open ended liabilities on their accounts whereas the current lump sum system allows a claim to be closed off.

The injured party could be left with ongoing expenses with nobody to pay for them. Just think of the number of insurance companies which have gone to the wall over the years, Quinn, Setanta, PMPA, etc...

If I was seriously injured as a twenty or thirty year old wouldn't like to be dependant on the certainty that an insurance company is still going to be around for the next sixty years to meet any ongoing payments.

CarProblem

angela1711 wrote: »

our solicitor still said that it would affect everyone

This isn't true - all talk of reform has focused on lower level injury awards. Catastrophic cases will not be impacted, in fact if the discount rate is lowered (likely) they'll increase. No impact studies carried out by firms has considered reductions in catastrophic awards. None

Solicitors love to present themselves as white knights standing up for clients - they (not unreasonably) are worried about their own income stream

Take the PIAB/Injuries Board. Actually increased awards but was still attacked by solicitors who felt (again probably correctly) their share of the pie was shrinking

Harry Palmr

This is pretty danming stuff if true and presumably it is

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/personal-injury-awards-expected-to-be-cut-despite-opposition-from-some-judges-40104160.html

Following leaks from the report, ISME last week wrote to Taoiseach Michéal Martin urging him to legislate for a cap on damages.

In letter to Justice Minister Helen McEntee yesterday ISME chief executive Neil McDonnell said a considerable number of judges had relatives actively involved in personal injuries litigation and that it would be inappropriate that they should be involved in consideration of the recommendations. He called for the Attorney General to communicate this to the Chief Justice.

A spokesman for Ms McEntee would not be drawn on the letter, but said the minister was awaiting the outcome of the deliberations.

Chinese walls really need putting in place.

Kivaro

Harry Palmr wrote: »

This is pretty danming stuff if true and presumably it is

In letter to Justice Minister Helen McEntee yesterday ISME chief executive Neil McDonnell said a considerable number of judges had relatives actively involved in personal injuries litigation and that it would be inappropriate that they should be involved in consideration of the recommendations. He called for the Attorney General to communicate this to the Chief Justice.

This is something that I highlighted in my previous post when I spoke about the tight knit legal community of family members of judges working in law firms around the country. I am amazed that somebody of importance actually came out in public and said it. It stinks to high heaven and the government better not capitulate to the obvious cronyism in the Irish legal system. We scoff when we read about corrupt practices happening in third world countries, and yet here in Ireland ............

Kivaro

Looks like the Judicial Council voted to adopt guidelines relating to personal injuries. Initially it was looking like they would not adopt these guidelines, but something/someone convinced them otherwise. These guidelines will replace the existing Book of Quantum, which is a good thing.

Also good to hear Minister McEntee saying today that if these reforms do not reduce our insurance costs, then Government will step in to make sure it happens.

BattleCorp

Kivaro wrote: »

Looks like the Judicial Council voted to adopt guidelines relating to personal injuries. Initially it was looking like they would not adopt these guidelines, but something/someone convinced them otherwise. These guidelines will replace the existing Book of Quantum, which is a good thing.

Also good to hear Minister McEntee saying today that if these reforms do not reduce our insurance costs, then Government will step in to make sure it happens.

Colour me sceptical when it comes to judges lowering awards. I would be delighted if that happens.

I regularly see PIAB awarding lads €15k to €20k for minor injuries that kept them out of work for a week or two. I'd be delighted to see more realistic awards but I won't hold my breath.

What happens if poor Jacinta or little Rhianna trip over a box in the supermarket? Surely we cant expect them to be happy with 4000 rather than 80,000..

Harry Palmr

On the face of it this is good news but proof is in the overall level of payouts from here on and what the renewals are in say a year (cos the effect won't be instant no matter what).

BattleCorp

Harry Palmr wrote: »

On the face of it this is good news but proof is in the overall level of payouts from here on and what the renewals are in say a year (cos the effect won't be instant no matter what).

Hopefully this will stop people with very very minor injuries from taking frivolous claims. One can only hope.

enricoh

Solicitors not happy about it, which is good news for 95% of the population!

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judges-vote-to-slash-personal-injury-awards-but-cuts-dont-satisfy-insurance-costs-campaigners-40166009.html
Personal injuries solicitor and former Law Society president Stuart Gilhooly described the award cuts as “savage

Harry Palmr

Also, it happens but not nearly enough - arrest fraudsters and those who enable their actions.

Kivaro

BattleCorp wrote: »

Colour me sceptical when it comes to judges lowering awards. I would be delighted if that happens.

I think that is why Justice Minister McEntee immediately talked about government intervention if there was no reduction in insurance costs as a result of compensation reductions.

fritzelly

enricoh wrote: »

Solicitors not happy about it, which is good news for 95% of the population!

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judges-vote-to-slash-personal-injury-awards-but-cuts-dont-satisfy-insurance-costs-campaigners-40166009.html
Personal injuries solicitor and former Law Society president Stuart Gilhooly described the award cuts as “savage

Wouldn't expect any less - easy money out the door now

BattleCorp

How long before the Book of Quantum is either revised or shown the door?

Kivaro

BattleCorp wrote: »

How long before the Book of Quantum is either revised or shown the door?

I believe that these new guidelines will replace the Book of Quantum.

BattleCorp

I found that PIAB was where the main problem was. Far too generous with their awards.

Awards by judges make the headlines but only about 5% - 6% of cases ever get in front of a judge.