Personal Injuries Guidelines: inflation, judicial discretion and Higgins v Coleman

While the 2021 Guidelines remain in force, the judgment reflects a growing recognition that they are now out of date and that this may be relevant when assessing damages in individual cases.

The current position

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.

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 reflect inflation and wider social developments.

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 effect. As a result, the 2021 Guidelines remain the applicable framework.

Judicial discretion

The courts have consistently confirmed 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 that proportionality remains at the forefront and that judges may depart from the Guidelines where justified.

What has been less clear is how far judges can go in taking account of factors such as inflation, particularly where updated Guidelines have been proposed but not brought into force.

The decision in Higgins v Coleman

In Higgins v Coleman, Mr Justice O’Higgins  confirmed that the 2021 Guidelines remain the applicable legal framework and awarded the Plaintiff 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.

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 inflation 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that the court should not ignore the fact that the Judicial Council has itself concluded that the Guidelines are now out of date.

In practice, this resulted in the court placing the award towards the upper end of the relevant brackets.

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 flexibly in practice; 
• Courts may be more inclined to assess damages towards the higher end of the ranges; 
• Inflation, while not expressly referred to in the Guidelines, may still influence awards; and
• The level of certainty originally intended by the Guidelines may be reduced. 

Conclusion

Until revised Guidelines are formally introduced, courts are likely to continue applying the 2021 brackets, while taking a broader view of factors such as inflation when deciding where an award should fall within those ranges.

In practical terms, when reserving claims, it would be prudent to assess quantum on the basis that a court may place injuries towards that higher end of a bracket.