Employment Case Review: Application to dismiss personal injury claim refused

https://thoughtleadership.leman.ie/post/102higt/employment-case-review-application-to-dismiss-personal-injury-claim-refused

By Amy McNicholas, 10th February 2022

BACKGROUND

Ms Hennessy (the “Plaintiff”) was employed by Ladbrokes (Ireland) Limited (the “Defendant”) as a customer service manager from 22 April 1998 until her employment ended, due to redundancy, on 11 August 2015.

At the time, the Plaintiff signed a Compromise Agreement (the “Agreement”) which included a clause that precluded her from issuing or pursuing “any proceedings or claim of any nature whatsoever” against the Defendant.

On 6 April 2016, some eight months after signing the Agreement, the Plaintiff lodged an application with the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB). A personal injury summons subsequently issued against the Defendant claiming damages for injuries to the Plaintiff’s shoulders. The Plaintiff alleged that she was repeatedly required to engage in repetitive movements and worked in unsuitable conditions.

MOTION SEEKING TO STRIKE OUT CLAIM

The Defendant issued a motion seeking to strike out the Plaintiff’s proceedings on three grounds:

Firstly, that the Plaintiff’s case would fail at full trial on the basis that she had signed the Agreement waiving any right of action against the Defendant. The Defendant described this as providing it with an unanswerable defence to the proceedings.
Secondly, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s proceedings were statute-barred. This was on the basis that the Plaintiff’s medical evidence showed the injury occurred more than 2 years before she lodged the claim with PIAB.
Finally, the Defendant submitted that the proceedings should be dismissed based on the delay in the commencement and conduct of proceedings. In this regard, the Defendant relied on a seven-year delay from when the Plaintiff first experienced shoulder pain in 2009, to when she issued proceedings in 2016. It was also argued that there were three periods of delay of 12 months, 15 months and 12 months respectively, after the personal injuries summons issued.

HIGH COURT (THE “COURT”) PROCEEDINGS

In considering the Agreement, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger (Bolger J) noted that the Defendant confirmed in an affidavit of discovery that it never had any documentation relating to pre-agreement negotiations for the Agreement.

The Court also considered the clause contained within the Agreement which stated that the Plaintiff had taken independent legal advice prior to signing the Agreement. In her replying affidavit, the Plaintiff submitted that she had not received legal advice as to the term or effect of the Agreement and was not advised to do so by the Defendant. The Plaintiff also claimed that the Defendant presented the Agreement to her on a “take it or leave basis.” The Court held that the absence of any pre-negotiation documents supported the view that the Agreement was put to the Plaintiff on a “take it or leave it basis”. In this regard, the Court found that the Agreement contained an untrue statement that the Plaintiff had taken independent legal advice.

Considering the judgement made in Board of Management of Malahide Community School v. Conaty [1] Bolger J held that there was an obligation on employers to explain the legal effects of agreements signed by employees, particularly in circumstances where the agreement involved the loss of statutory rights.

Bolger J also held that there was an implied obligation of mutual trust and confidence in the employment relationship and the Defendant could not rely on case law which states that a signatory was bound by what they signed.

In relation to the issue regarding the statute of limitations, Bolger J accepted that the Plaintiff had suffered from issues with her shoulder since 2009 and this was supported by the medical reports of her general practitioner and consultant rheumatologist. However, the Court accepted the Plaintiff’s submission that she did not realise the injuries to her shoulder were significant until she was advised to have surgery in 2015. In this regard, Bolger J held that this issue could not be fairly determined without further evidence from the Plaintiff and her medical team. Bolger J was of the view that the evidence relied upon by the Defendant was not sufficiently clear to dismiss the Plaintiff’s proceedings as being statute barred.

Finally, in relation to the issue of delay, Bolger J rejected the Defendant’s claim that the pre-action delay was seven-years. In fact, she commented on the fact that the Defendant had delayed in bringing the motion to dismiss and held that this could factor into the Court’s discretion to grant relief. In this regard and having consideration to Mangan v. Dockeray [2] the Court held that there was not a serious risk of injustice if the case continued. However, there would be an enormous prejudice to the Plaintiff if the case was dismissed.

THE COURT’S CONCLUSION

Bolger J was not satisfied on evidence that the claim was bound to fail and held that the Plaintiff was entitled to call evidence to deal with the issues surrounding the Agreement and the statute of limitations point.

GUIDANCE FOR EMPLOYERS IN RESPECT OF THE COURT’S FINDING RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT

Settlement agreements purporting to be full and final settlements, capturing all causes of action, including claims in tort, may not be as full and final as employers may have thought. In these circumstances, it is advisable that employers ensure that employees are making informed decisions by actively encouraging them (and keeping a record of doing so) to receive independent legal advice. In this regard, employer’s should ensure that the employee is informed in writing of their right to get legal advice and given sufficient time to obtain that advice. Without this evidence at a minimum, the enforceability of a waiver agreement could be brought into question.

The full judgement can be viewed here.

[1] [2019] IEHC

[2] [1995] 2 IRM 561

New bill may push more legal costs on those who take insurers to court

Robert Troy: ‘If someone wants to reject their award and bring it to court and the court doesn’t increase the award any further, well then, they’re going to have to pay for that’

By Michael Brennan, 6th February 2022

https://www.businesspost.ie/insurance/new-bill-may-push-more-legal-costs-on-those-who-take-insurers-to-court-5b5866e8

Personal injury claimants face the prospect of large legal bills if they decline an offer from the Personal Injury Assessment Board and fail to win a higher award in court, under new legislation being brought to cabinet this week.

Thousands of personal injury compensation claimants are going to the courts every year rather than accepting a settlement award from the Personal Injury Assessment Board (PIAB).

Under the current system, these claimants rarely have to pay any legal costs if they fail to get higher compensation awards in the courts or in out-of-court settlements.

But under the new legislation, they will have to pay their own legal costs and the legal costs of the insurer if the subsequent court award does not exceed the settlement they had been offered by PIAB.

Robert Troy, the Minister of State for Trade Promotion and Company Regulation, told the Business Post, that the aim of the bill was to get more people to use the PIAB process instead of the courts.

“If someone wants to reject their award and bring it to court and the court doesn’t increase the award any further, well then, they’re going to have to pay for that,” he said.

The bill will allow insurance companies to lodge a settlement offer with the courts which matches the recommended PIAB award. If a personal injury claimant rejects this, then the bill provides for them to be made liable for the insurance company’s legal costs for defending the case from the date of the lodging of the settlement offer.

Troy said this would “tighten” the powers to award legal costs against personal injury claimants who decline PIAB awards.

The bill will make it the “default position” for legal costs to be awarded against personal injury claimants who fail to get a higher court award, unless a judge determines that this would be an injustice. The judge would also be required to explain the rationale for such a decision.

The amount of costly and unnecessary litigation in personal injury cases has been identified as a key factor in high motor insurance premiums for drivers and high public liability insurance costs for businesses.

Under the current laws, personal injury claimants are liable for their own costs if they lose their case in court, but many insurance companies settle in advance to reduce their costs.

The measures in the bill will strengthen the ability of insurance companies to avoid making costly out-of-court settlements with personal injury claimants who reject PIAB awards. These settlements often involve the legal costs of the claimants being covered by the insurance company. It will also mean that legal firms could be left out of pocket if they cannot recover the costs themselves from claimants.

In 2020, PIAB made around 8,500 settlement awards, but around half of them were rejected. PIAB has said that the majority of rejections were made by personal injury claimants rather than insurance companies. It stated in its most recent annual report that the acceptance of its awards “should be much higher” than the current 51 per cent rate, given that the average awards through litigation and PIAB are very similar.

Troy said that the PIAB process was far cheaper and speedier for compensation claimants than going to court.

“The overwhelming evidence is where cases are resolved through PIAB, they are done in a much more timely and cost-efficient manner because it alleviates the legal costs,” he said.

According to the Central Bank’s 2020 report into motor insurance claims, legal costs account for 63 per cent of value of motor insurance court settlements settled in court compared to just 4 per cent of the value of claims settled in PIAB. Legal costs are adding around €16,000 to the average cost of a claim settled in court, which amounts to €40,000 compared to €24,000 for a PIAB claim.

Troy said that the PIAB process was also faster with average claims being settled in 2.9 years compared to 4.7 years through the legal route.

“We cannot take away people’s right to go to court. But if they want to go to court, there has to be consequences,” he said.

The bill will also narrow the number of grounds that insurance claimants can use to avoid going through the PIAB process. This will include claims involving injuries of a wholly psychological nature, which will now go through PIAB first rather than the courts.

It will also allow for PIAB to engage in mediation between personal injury claimants and insurance companies from the start of the process.

Troy said this would not be a delaying mechanism and that it had been welcomed during the public consultation process on the bill.

“Mediation is a tried and tested process. I think this will help bring about a greater number of claims being dealt with in PIAB than if if it wasn’t there,” he said.

The heads of the new bill to overhaul the operation of PIAB are due to be brought to cabinet this week, with the aim of getting approval for drafting the full bill.

Last March, the Judicial Council adopted new personal injury guidelines which have reduced the suggested court damages in personal injury cases. This has had a knock-on effect on PIAB awards which dropped by an average of 40 per cent in the first five months afterwards. But so far, motor insurance premiums have only dropped by between 5-10 per cent.

Troy said that he did want to see any insurance customers being ‘gouged’ with high premiums.

“We have done an awful lot of work in terms of reforming what insurance companies said needed to be reformed in order to bring down their premiums. We want to see the premiums coming down now as a consequence of this,” he said.

Boy (12) dies after car he was driving collided with lorry in Co Limerick

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/boy-12-dies-after-car-he-was-driving-collided-with-lorry-in-co-limerick-1.4799551

Child was sole occupant of the Nissan Qashqai involved in crash on N21 near Adare

A 12-year-old boy was killed when the car he was driving collided with a lorry in Co Limerick in the early hours of Friday.

The boy, who is believed to be from the Newcastle West area, was pronounced dead at the scene of the collision, at Rineroe near Adare.

The boy who was soon to celebrate his 13th birthday was driving a Nissan Qashqai.

A Garda spokesman said the fatal collision occurred “shortly before 2am” on the N21 at Rineroe near Adare. Emergency services were alerted after the incident.

The driver of the lorry, a man in his 40s, did not require hospital treatment. The boy was the sole occupant of the car.

His body was removed to the morgue at University Hospital Limerick and the coroner has been notified.

On Friday afternoon, the parish priest of Adare, Monsignor Dan Neenan, who said prayers at the scene of the fatal accident in which a 12 year old boy died, said the local community was in shock.

Fr Neenan said he had been called to the scene at 4am by gardaí and when he arrived the body of the boy was being taken from the car. “It was obvious he was dead so I said prayers,” Fr Neenan told RTÉ radio’s News at One.

The emergency services at the scene were wonderful and professional, he added. Fr Neenan remained at the scene until the parents of the boy arrived. “They were obviously so shocked and were incredibly dignified.”

The parents were given a few minutes alone with their son after which they spoke and prayed with Fr Neenan. When leaving the scene the boy’s mother spoke to and thanked all the emergency personnel for their services.

The scene was subsequently preserved for examination by Garda Forensic Collision Investigators.

Diversions were in place on Friday morning on the N21, with city-bound traffic being diverted from Adare via Croom.

Gardaí have appealed for any witnesses to the collision to come forward. Any road users who may have camera footage (including dash-cam) and were travelling on the N21 near Adare at the time of the collision are asked to make this footage available to Gardaí.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Newcastle West Garda station on 069 20650, the Garda confidential line on 1800 666 111 or any Garda station.