Expert Witness Journal Issue 67 June/July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 54
Personal Injuries Guidelines:
in昀氀ation, judicial discretion and
Higgins v Coleman
by Emma Meagher, Consultant at Eversheds Sutherland.
The recent High Court decision in Higgins v
Coleman [2025] IEHC 757, is less signi昀椀cant for its
facts than for what it tells us about the current state
of the Personal Injuries Guidelines.
that proportionality remains at the forefront and
that judges may depart from the Guidelines where
justi昀椀ed.
What has been less clear is how far judges can
go in taking account of factors such as in昀氀ation,
particularly where updated Guidelines have been
proposed but not brought into force.
While the 2021 Guidelines remain in force, the
judgment re昀氀ects a growing recognition that they
are now out of date and that this may be relevant
when assessing damages in individual cases.
The decision in Higgins v Coleman
The current position
In Higgins v Coleman, Mr Justice O’Higgins
con昀椀rmed that the 2021 Guidelines remain the
applicable legal framework and awarded the Plainti昀昀
a total of €170,564, including €75,000 for serious
psychiatric injury (top of bracket) and a €33,000 for
back injury, discounted to €22,000 for overlap.
The Personal Injuries Guidelines were introduced
under the Judicial Council Act 2019 and continue
to provide the framework for assessing damages in
personal injury cases.
Courts are required to ‘have regard’ to the
Guidelines. However, they are not strictly binding
and judges retain discretion to depart from them
where appropriate, provided reasons are given.
He did not apply the proposed 16.7% increase, nor
did he treat the draft revised Guidelines as being
in force. However, he went on to state that it is not
unreasonable for a court to take account, “in a
very general sense”, of in昀氀ation since 2021. He also
noted that the court should not ignore the fact that
the Judicial Council has itself concluded that the
Guidelines are now out of date.
The 2019 Act provides that the Guidelines should
be reviewed every three years . That review
was completed in 2024 and draft amendments
were submitted to the Minister for Justice, Jim
O’Callaghan, in early 2025. The proposed revisions
recommended an overall increase of approximately
16.7% to re昀氀ect in昀氀ation and wider social
developments.
In practice, this resulted in the court placing
the award towards the upper end of the relevant
brackets.
However, those revised Guidelines have not been
introduced. The Minister did not bring them before
the Oireachtas, which is a necessary step before they
can take legal e昀昀ect. As a result, the 2021 Guidelines
remain the applicable framework.
Why this matters
This decision does not change the Guidelines, but it
is a useful indication of how the Guidelines may now
be applied:
•
The 2021 Guidelines remain in force, but may be
applied more 昀氀exibly in practice;
•
Courts may be more inclined to assess damages
towards the higher end of the ranges;
•
In昀氀ation, while not expressly referred to in the
Guidelines, may still in昀氀uence awards; and
Judicial discretion
The courts have consistently con昀椀rmed that the
Guidelines are intended to guide, rather than
strictly control, awards. In Meehan v Shawcove Ltd
[2022] IECA 208, the Court of Appeal made clear
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
52
JUNE 2026
