The call for a decrease in insurance premiums became more pronounced following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of what was essentially an evaluative challenge to the instructions for reducing personal injury compensations. From April 2021, these instructions, having gained approval from the majority of the Judicial Council, lead to the observed reduction in awards from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (now known as the Insurance Resolution Board). This resulted in a considerable decline in personal injury lawsuits before the High Court, where legal expense rates are at their peak.
Currently, more cases are being brought to the Circuit Court where the costs are relatively low. It is estimated that approximately 75% of cases are now being handled according to the new guidelines. These instructions, notably, provide a significant reduction for minor injuries compared to the former guidelines, otherwise known as the “book of quantum”.
The implications of the personal injury case led by Bridget Delaney was highlighted by the substantial presence of attorneys at the Supreme Court on Tuesday when the seven-judge panel presented their rulings.
The majority court’s verdict confirmed the lawfulness of the guidelines set out in the Judicial Council Act 2019 due to separate “saving” legislation enacted in later part of April 2021. The ruling in the Delaney case has harmful ramifications for a minimum of 10 other cases levied against the guidelines which were previously suspended waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision.
Even though the decision caused disappointment among personal injury attorneys, some were more practical, acknowledging the much-required clarity it brought to all the parties involved in claims.
Several sources stated that it is beneficial for both plaintiffs and attorneys that claims are settled according to instructions provided by judges familiar with personal injury lawsuits, rather than by government bodies or representatives of government departments.
Stuart Gilhooly, law practitioner and senior counsel, the legal representative of the Law Society on the personal injuries committee which endorsed the establishment of guidelines, expressed his satisfaction about the certainty provided.
He remarked that as required by the Judicial Council Act, a study of the guidelines had been carried out by the personal injury instructions committee of the council. It is expected that the committee’s report, which is currently with the council’s board, would give rise to proposed changes to the guidelines presented to the council later this year. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s verdict, any amendments would necessitate legislative action.
Gilhooly has expressed his aspiration for revisions to be made to the award levels in relation to the guidelines, to consider the cost-of-living and inflation since April 2021. Sharing the doubts of many, he questions the likelihood of the guidelines leading to a decrease in insurance premiums, an objective the Government is striving for under its insurance reform scheme. He emphasised the responsibility for this lies within the insurance industry.
“No more excuses for the insurance industry not to lower their premiums. It’s high time that the insurers either take action or stop talking,” he stated.