Conroy v Commissioner for an Garda Síochána
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1989 |
| Neutral Citation | 1988 WJSC-HC 64 |
| Date | 01 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 3747P/1985,[1985 No. 3747P] |
| Court | High Court |
1988 WJSC-HC 64
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN:
and
Judgment of the President of the High Court delivered on the9th day of February 1988.
The Plaintiff in this case is a retired member of the Garda Siochana and was at all times relevant hereto a member of An Garda Siochana.
On the 18th day of July, 1981, the Plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries which were maliciously inflicted on him in the performance of his duties as a member of An Garda Siochana.
On the 15th day of October 1982, a summons was issued on behalf of the Plaintiff entitled
in which the Plaintiff claimed compensation under provisions of the said Acts in respect of the injuries, loss and damages suffered andsustained by him on the 18th day of July 1981. This application was grounded on the affidavits sworn by him on the 25th day of November 1983 and the Exhibits therein referred to.
The application was heard by the then President of the High Court on the 21st day of December 1983 and the Plaintiff was awarded compensation in respect of the said personal injuries and loss suffered and sustained by him on the said 18th day of July 1981 in the performance of his duties as a member of the Garda Siochana while then actually on duty. The amount of such compensation was fixed in the sum of £197,464.00.
It appears from a note taken of the then President's judgment in this matter that this sum awarded by way of compensation was calculated asfollows:-
| General Damages | £70,000.00 |
| Special Damages to date | 12,464.00 |
| Future loss of earnings | 115, 000.00 |
| Total | £197,464.00 |
At the hearing of the Plaintiff's application on the 21st day of December 1983, he was represented by Mr. Marcus Daly, Senior Counsel, and Mr. John Gallagher, Barrister-at-Law (instructed by Patrick G. Golfer and Company), and the Minister for the Public Service was represented by Mr. Hugh Geoghegan, Senior Counsel and Mr. Murphy, Barrister-at-Law (instructed by the Chief State Solicitor).
It is common case that the then President of the High Court was informed by the parties that it had been agreed between them that the applicant (the Plaintiff in these proceedings) would be retired from the Garda Siochana on medical grounds as and from that date, namely,the 21st day of December 1983.
The then President heard the evidence of Dr. Walsh, Mr. Hugh Cassidy, Dr. Michael Smyth, Dr. Mullett, Mr. Brian Millar of The Rehabilitation Centre, and Mr. Seagrave Daly on behalf of the Applicant and the evidence of Dr. Alan Mooney on behalf of the Respondent, the Minister for Public Service. On the basis of the evidence presented to him, the then President of the High Court fixed the compensation aforesaid.
It is claimed on behalf of the Plaintiff in these proceedingsthat:-
2 "4. Discussions took place prior to the commencement of the hearing of the said application and an agreement was reached between Counsel for both parties that the Applicant would be retired on medical grounds as and from the 21st day of December 1983. It was an express term of the said agreement that the Plaintiff was being retired as being a hundred percent disabled and entitled to a hundred percent of the appropriate pension and the Plaintiff's and the Actuaries figures and evidence to the Court were based on this agreement.
5. An award of £197, 464.00 was made by the President based on the said evidence and calculated on the basis of the said agreement. The Plaintiff retired on the 21st day of December 1983 and subsequent to the award being made, the Respondent received notification from the Commissioner of An Garda Siochana by letter dated in or about the month of February 1984 stating that he was only being awarded 66% of the appropriate pension".
It is alleged by and on behalf of the Plaintiff that the "withholding of the 34% of the Plaintiff's said pension is in contravention of the said agreement" and the Plaintiff claims in these proceedings:-
(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff's claim for compensation under An Garda Siochana (Compensation) Acts by the Plaintiff was heard and determined by the President as he then was on the basis of the said agreement that the Plaintiff would be retired from An Garda Siochana on medical grounds as being 100% disabled and entitled to 100% of the appropriate pension.
(b) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to a 100% of the said appropriate pension.
(c) An order for payment of all increases of the said pension due to the Plaintiff with interest thereon pursuant to the Courts Act 1981, and
(d) Further and other relief.
In their defence, the Defendants denied that they entered into the agreement alleged by the Plaintiff in Paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim. They allege that in the course of discussions prior to the hearing of the Plaintiff's claim for compensation, it was agreed that the Plaintiff was unfit to resume his duties as a member of An Garda Siochana and that he would receive a special pension, but neither the percentage of his disability nor the amount of his special pension wasdiscussed.
They denied that the award made by the then President of the High Court was calculated on any percentage of disability or the amount of special pension as alleged by the Plaintiff.
Subsequent to the making of the award by the then President of the High Court, the Plaintiff in these proceedings was awarded aspecial pension beginning on the 4th day of February 1984 at the rate of£5,401.68 a year subject to the conditions in the relevant pension orders, and a retirement gratuity o £3,822.68.
He was informed by letter from the Assistant Commissioner that the "total gratuity payable in your case was £6,798.94. By reason, however, you having opted into the Garda Siochana contributory pension scheme a deduction of £2,976.26 was necessary".
It was admitted that the special pension was based on a 65% disability and not a 100% disability.
If the special pension had been awarded on the basis of a 100% disability, it would have been at the rate of £8,310.24 perannum.
As this was contrary to the alleged agreement between the parties the matter was re-entered before the then President of the High Court on the 26th day of November 1984 but he held that as he had made his award, he was not in a position to alter his decision in any way.
The present proceedings were then instituted by and on behalf of the Plaintiff herein.
It is quite clear from the evidence in this case of both Mr. Daly and Mr. Geoghegan that, prior to the hearing of the matter in the High Court, it was agreed that the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff were of such a nature as to prevent him adequately performing his duties as a member of An Garda Siochana in the future and that he should be retired from the Force.
The area of conflict between Mr. Daly and Mr. Geoghegan, both of whom, I am satisfied, gave their evidence honestly and in accordance with their recollection, is that Mr. Daly said that there was a specificagreement between him and Mr. Geoghegan that the Plaintiff should be regarded as being retired on the basis of 100% disability and that he would be paid a special pension on that basis.
Mr. Geoghegan states that there was not and could not have been any such agreement; that the payment of a special pension was governed by statutory regulations and would be dependent on the report of the Garda Surgeon who was present and with whom he had a consultation.
It is quite clear that the payment of a special pension is governed by the Statutes, Statutory Orders and Regulations relating to the pensions of members of An Garda Siochana and the procedures therein set forth must be followed.
Consequently, I am satisfied that it was not open to the Respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial