TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 2 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

New system may see end of lump sum court awards

Ministers have approved the creation of new court rules to avoid large lump sums for damages for people injured by others.

Image: Niall Carson/PA Archive

GOVERNMENT MINISTERS have approved the creation of new laws which will end the practice of awarding lump sums to people who sustain major injuries as a result of the negligence of others.

The Cabinet has approved the creation of new legislation which would replace the single lump sum awards with periodic payment orders which should better reflect the true cost of treatment that someone may need.

“The danger of the lump sum approach, which is the current method of assessing damages in such cases, is that it can lead to situations where a person is over-compensated or under-compensated,” justice minister Alan Shatter said.

The minister said there had been significant debate over how to gauge an appropriate sum to be awarded by the courts, particularly given circumstances where it was difficult to ascertain a person’s future circumstances or the level of care they could need.

Shatter argued that previous lump sum system meant that some people who won lump sums in court would exhaust their funds because of advances in medical science, which meant they lived longer, while in other cases plaintiffs died early leaving their families with a large windfall.

“I believe that the introduction of an appropriate and effective scheme of periodic payment orders will address this issue and will further the interests of justice,” he said.

The minister said while there was never any issue involving the State, which would always be in a position to meet any payout asked of it, a new financial system would be needed to ensure that parties continued to pay out in line with court orders without exposing the State to any financial risk.

The new rules will be contained in a Civil Liability (Amendment) Bill which will now begin drafting, with a general scheme to be published in due course.

Read next:

Comments (42 Comments)

  • I don’t think the above article goes very far to explaining the full workings or benefits of PPOs. They have been in place for a number of years in the UK and have been regarded as a much fairer and safer method of awarding damages than lump sum payments, as has been outlined above.

    A few people have mentioned the long processing times for court cases, which can leave people out of pocket. While this is an issue in itself, it’s somewhat separate from the introduction of PPOs, which won’t affect how quickly a case has been brought to court. As Thomas mentioned though, a lump sum would be awarded to claimants upon successful award of a PPO in order to compensate them for previous expenses (and the cost of funding them) between the time of the incident and the conclusion of the court case in question. Periodic payments would then be paid out for the remainder of the claimant’s life to compensate them for future care costs, loss of earnings, etc.

    Contrary to what people have assumed, however, insurers aren’t particularly keen on PPOs as they can be quite difficult to reserve for and bear very long-termed risks.

    This article provides some more information:

    http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/6929/TW-EU-2012-24117-Insights-PPOs.pdf

    Reply
  • I really don’t like Shatter.

    Reply
  • more bullshit from shatter, I’m out of work two years because of an accident, borrowed 10,000 for medical expenses already and may need to borrow 50,000 for an operation or risk being crippled while i wait three or four years on our failed health system……

    down 100,000 in wages already and this clown wants to give me a few bob every year….what an absolute clown….

    Sort out the HSE…..stop licking the insurance companies arses….

    Reply
  • Taking five to ten years to settle a court case makes a mockery of the justice system. The proper thing to do is to ensure that cases are dealt with in a speedy manner through the courts, and therefore stop the situation where a claimant has to bear any kind of substantial costs. It took my own case over three years through the Equality Tribunal which was way too long. With the merger of the EA and the IHRC I’m hoping that at least discrimination cases will be dealt with in a much more practical way from now on.

    Reply
  • So your prolong the survey period of the injury and in turn extend the amount of work required by the case.

    It’s going to cost a lot more than it saves.

    Why not wait it out and make a settlement once all medical evidence is obtained? What’s wrong with that?

    Reply
    • I’ll tell you whats wrong, Niall. How is the injured party going tom live in the meantime ? No need to point out the very special needs , house adaption , cars , meds, nursing and so on . Who is going to pay ? The idea of the proposed structured settlement is the way to go. The courts want it , the injured party gets looked after , the family do not get a windfall upon death and so on. Think it out

      Reply
    • How is it done now? If Liability is determined and the responsible parties insurer is dealing with the matter then there is no issue in an interim payment being made to the claimant to tide them over. This is actually common practice in the industry.

      You could have injuries running for 20 years. Expecting an insurer to continually assess the injuries of a claimant over a 20 year period is going to cost and it’s us that are going to have to pay the bill in our premiums – Think it out.

      Reply
    • @niall

      are you sure insurance companies make interim payments? Liability has been admitted in my case, i need an operation but i cant afford it….

      Reply
  • Why not just do a lump sum into a trust fund that does payments to the injured person, at least that way the money works for the injured party and not some insurance company, this would kill 2 birds with one stone without seeming so one sided againest the injured party. I agree with what others have posted, this is not about helping people with injuries this is about saving insurance compaines money. The mention of a windfall sickens me tbh, the fact he would even imply the whole windfall part just stinks, like woot folks joe’s dead but we gotta a windfall yippeee!! its not like the persons family has been sitting around waiting for him to die,,thats the HSE’s job!

    Reply
  • If only I believed this was for the good of the individual. If only

    Reply
  • What a load of nonsense, the government only act in their own interests, they could care less about people suffering. I had a bad accident several years ago and it took years for the case to be settled during which, I incurred massive expenses and debt. I was borrowing money for treatments among other things that I won’t go into but if it had been decided that I would receive periodic payments, I would have outstanding loans, credit card debt and money owed to family. Until such times as the entire system is overhauled so people aren’t waiting years and borrowing money in the interim, the state should leave well enough alone.

    Reply
  • Dgar 15/01/13 #

    Am sick of the ridiculous claims culture which has developed here over the years. Depending on how they implement this it could be a better system but it does sound like it could get expensive. Shouldn’t be about claimant getting lump sum….all expenses should be accounted for & not be misused.

    Reply
  • This whole discussion is making me feel queesy myself.
    Why not go for a ‘ No fault system, where the appropriate amount of compensation is paid out , quickly, and over time.
    Ahh sh1t!! I forgot that would take Shatters buddies out of the equation altogether

    Reply
    • The problem is in determining an “appropriate amount”.

      An example of the type of case which would warrant a periodic payment order would be a 10 year old, badly injured in a car accident, unable to work and requiring constant medical care for the remainder of her life.

      How do you estimate what she would have earned had she not been in the accident? Or how much her medical care will cost per year 50 years from now? Or what age she will live to? Or what price inflation will be over the remainder of her life?

      Coming up with a single lump sum figure for these costs is pure guesswork and is gambling with the livelihood of the injured party. This, unfortunately, has been the position of the courts until this law is introduced. The periodic payment order helps ensure the victim receives enough money to pay for what she needs for the remainder of her life.

      Also – in the UK they give the injured party the choice of the periodic payment order or the lump sum.

      A bit like Deal or No Deal.

      Reply
  • It’s not just the medical incompetence cases that will be affected by this law. Given that Government and their Insurance Companies are the most likely culprits, this is a cynical exercise in protecting the Government and the high premiums they pay for incompetence.

    I know of cases where the HSE (Child “Protection”) were at fault and the HSE brought in more lawyers and more expensive lawyers to prevent justice from happening.

    I know a man who has appeared hundreds of times in court after his case was completed and the HSE ruled in the wrong. He cant afford solicitors and often appears in court by himself against 5 or 7 barristers and solicitors for the State. They will spend millions on lawyers to prevent paying thousands in compensation. Often the compensation only covers what the injured party has already paid out or lost. If the judicial system wasn’t so corrupt, especially in the secret Family Courts, it wouldn’t be so expensive, or unjust.

    Shatter is not doing this for the benefit of his constituents, he is also trying to legalize the madness in the Family Courts to the benefit of the State. He will have to have another referendum to do this and this must be strongly opposed. FG know they wont get re-elected so don’t care at this point what damage they do. Isn’t it interesting how former politicians have “fallen on their feet” after leaving office?

    Reply
  • We were promised reform by the troika in our courts where is it minister,you have been sheltered far to long.

    Reply
  • Sounds like a good idea.

    Reply
  • David 15/01/13 #

    Meanwhile, back over at Planet Tribunal the Legal Lotto continues undisturbed. Every barrister, solicitor, senior council, etc. who has a ticket wins a lump sum. It’s a world where fantasy law collides with Cluedo politics. Who did it? Who cares, we’re all getting paid!

    Reply
  • Call a spade a spade. This will stop false or exaggerated claiming…good

    Reply
  • This is a great development for the public – a much fairer system. The details need careful thought though e.g how payments are indexed.

    It’s worrying news for General Insurance companies!

    Reply
    • its great news for insurance companies, which is probably why he’s doing it. Instead of paying out lump sums the interest from insurance companies investments will pay for “periodic” payments.

      Reply
    • This has been called for by the Chief Justice for years now and is a welcome development… i’m surprised at the amount of people complaining about this as it makes complete sense especially where you have scenarios of a child who has severe disabilities from childbirth … it makes far more sense that he receive periodic payments that will be there for life rather than a lump sum that might only do him for 20 years and then he can’t seek more….

      Re payment what i think would happen would be that the court would assess overheads such as care, medication etc and will make an award based on that … i would imagine there would have to be a system whereby the payer or payee could seek an increase or decrease based on need after a certain time and I would say that the court will also be able to order lump sum payments to cover any costs already incurred or for refitting houses etc

      Reply
    • You’re wrong on two points there:

      1 – there will be a lump sum paid in addition to the periodic payment. It won’t be as large as before this introduction but it will still be significant.

      2 – the payment will increase in line with some index. In the UK they use a survey of medical workers salaries which has increases faster than inflation. This is suitable since a large proportion of the payments will be used to pay medical care costs. There is no benefit to the insurer since the return they can earn on the money they have to hold in reserve to make these payments is much lower than their return from conducting insurance business.

      Trust me – this is a positive development for the injured party. It passes risk from the individual to the insurer. The only disgrace is that it wasn’t introduced sooner.

      Reply
  • The money was resting in my account- Father Ted classic

    Reply
  • POWER & CONTROL, that’s all I’ll say….!!!

    Reply
  • What about all the lump sums he gets every week? Oops he calls them wages !

    Reply

Add New Comment