Flanagan v The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Bernard J. Barton
• Judgment Date: 18 July 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 435
• Docket Number: [2010 No. 856 S.P.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 18 July 2018

BETWEEN:

AIDEN FLANAGAN

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND REFORM

RESPONDANT

[2018] IEHC 435

[2010 No. 856 S.P.]

THE HIGH COURT

Personal injuries – General compensation – Pecuniary loss – Applicant seeking damages for personal injury – Whether an assault was the substantial cause of the applicant's continuing injuries and loss

Facts: The applicant, Garda Flanagan, on the 22nd of October 2010, brought proceedings before the High Court pursuant to the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Acts 1941 and 1945, in respect of personal injuries and pecuniary loss arising as a result of an assault which occurred on the 23rd August, 2008. The Court, on 23rd March, 2018, considered that a deduction of 15% should be made in respect of Reddy v Bates [1983] IR 141 contingencies. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to be compensated for the physical and psychological injuries, including loss of amenity, together with the pecuniary loss ascertained and found by the Court to have been caused by the assault. The Court considered that a fair and reasonable sum to compensate the applicant for pain and suffering to date commensurate with his injuries was €100,000 and €75,000 for future pain and suffering, making in aggregate €175,000. The Court held that it would make an order for the amount of the pecuniary losses already agreed together with past losses claimed insofar as those were attributable to and were caused by the assault. When ascertained, the Court held that it would award Courts Act interest at the Court rate on the final sum for pecuniary losses to date. With regard to the claim for all future medical and travel expenses, the Court held that it would allow the amounts claimed to the extent that such were attributable to the injuries substantially caused by the assault. The Court considered it reasonable to allow the claim for future loss of earnings until age 55. The Court was satisfied that the applicant's ability to take up employment following retirement was impacted negatively. Accordingly, the Court held that it would allow a further sum of €45,000 by way of enhanced general compensation in respect of the resulting diminution/loss of opportunity. The case was adjourned sine die to enable the parties to ascertain and make the consequential adjustments to the amounts claimed which arose as a result of the conclusions reached, if necessary, by calling further actuarial evidence. The parties were also afforded the opportunity to make further submissions on the matters arising and on the terms of the final order to be made. The parties entered into correspondence with a view to identifying and, if possible, reaching agreement on the amounts and heads of the claim for past and future pecuniary loss attributable to the injuries caused by the assault. This exercise resulted in a measure of agreement. In relation to the outstanding matters the parties prepared position papers which were presented to the Court when the case resumed to entertain further submissions. The matters on which no agreement could be reached were: (i) past pecuniary loss; (ii) Courts Act interest; (iii) the claim for future loss of earnings/pension benefit; (iv) Reddy v Bates contingencies; and (v) future medical expenses.

Held by Barton J that the applicant's claim for the cost of his future medical and travel expenses may be recovered without reference to the medical aid scheme; whether or not he wished to remain in the scheme and pay the premiums out of his own recourses was entirely a matter for him. Barton J held that he was also entitled to recover his claim for the lump sum and loss of weekly pension arising from his retirement/resignation, an event which would not have arisen but for the injuries sustained as a result of the assault. Barton J held that the net amount of this loss would have to be adjusted to reflect the discount for Reddy and Bates contingencies at 15% and retirement at age 55 instead of 60.

Barton J held that the case would be adjourned further to permit implementation of the Court's rulings before making a final order.

Case adjourned.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Bernard J. Barton delivered on the 18th day of July 2018

1 This judgement should be read in conjunction with the principle judgement of the Court delivered on 23rd March, 2018, on foot of which the case was adjourned sine die to enable the parties ascertain and make the consequential adjustments to the amounts claimed which arise as a result of the conclusions reached, if necessary, by calling further actuarial evidence. The parties were also afforded the opportunity to make further submissions on the matters arising and on the terms of the final order to be made.

2 Following the adjournment, the parties entered into correspondence with a view to identifying and, if possible, reaching agreement on the amounts and heads of the claim for past and future pecuniary loss attributable to the injuries caused by the assault. This exercise resulted in a measure of agreement. In relation to the outstanding matters the parties prepared position papers which were presented to the Court when the case resumed to entertain further submissions.

3 It is not intended to summarise the position papers or the submissions here, suffice to say that the matters on which no agreement could be reached are as follows:

(i) Past Pecuniary...