Isme says 17% rise in personal injury payout is ‘capitulation to vested interests'
Isme
says
Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan
's support for an increase in the scale of personal injury awards is a capitulation to vested legal interests.
It says the move undermines years of work to bring down
insurance costs
for SMEs and consumers.
Mr O'Callaghan is due to bring a proposal to Cabinet next week to raise personal injury awards by 17 per cent on the back of a recommendation from the Judicial Council.
The board of the Judicial Council is required by law to review the guidelines every three years and proposed last December that payments should rise by 16.7 per cent.
READ MORE
That recommendation was adopted by the council of the State's judges in late January and passed over to Mr O'Callaghan, who must put the amendments before the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval.
ISME say the increase would lead to increases in insurance premiums for both businesses and consumers and 'would take money directly from small businesses and into the pockets of lawyers'.
'This proposed increase is indefensible,' said Isme chief executive
Neil McDonnell
. 'It rewards a highly profitable legal industry and punishes honest employers, retailers and community organisations.
'Insurance costs have not fallen following previous reforms, and now the Government wants to undo the little progress that has been made,' he said.
Isme says the judiciary should be removed from any involvement in setting the level of awards which, it argues, should be delegated to an independent expert body such as the
Personal Injuries Resolution Board
or the Workplace Relations Commission.
'Not alone is there no justification for an increase in personal injuries awards, but the final report of the Personal Injuries Commission suggests that awards should be reduced by at least a further 30 per cent,' Mr McDonnell said.
He noted that Ireland already has much higher personal injury payouts than other comparable countries and 14 times more personal injury cases than England and Wales, despite a population that is just one -twelfth of those two countries.
Isme is already in conflict with Government over changes in the Defamation Amendment Bill, now being prepared for Cabinet, which, it says, has been stripped of its most meaningful reforms and will fail to protect small businesses.
'The Defamation Amendment Bill as currently drafted is utterly inadequate, and requires at a minimum the insertion of a serious harm test, a cap on damages and penalisation of SLAPP lawsuits,' Isme says. SLAPP lawsuits, or strategic lawsuits against public participation, are lawsuits whose purpose is to intimidate or silence another party.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
44 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Government urged to show restraint amid €2bn overspend
Ireland's fiscal watchdog has warned the Government to exercise restraint on spending, calling on the coalition to set limits to offset what it has called a "weak fiscal framework." Speaking at an Oireachtas committee about Budget 2026, chair of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (Ifac) Séamus Coffey told committee members that current spending overruns this year are likely to exceed €2bn. 'Recent budgets have pumped money into an economy that is already performing well,' Mr Coffey told the committee. 'After accounting for exceptional corporation tax and a strong economy, the government is running a substantial deficit. This is equivalent to more than €2,500 per worker.' The Government is currently preparing its summer economic statement, a key budgetary document that will indicate the parameters for spending increases in the October budget. Speaking on Budget 2026 which will take place in October, the council chair and University College Cork lecturer said spending growth should be no faster than the sustainable growth rate of the economy, given that it continues to perform well in the face of rising uncertainty and looming tariff measures. 'That is not to say the government can't try to improve public services, support households that are struggling or upgrade Ireland's infrastructure,' Mr Coffey told the committee. 'But it means that choices would need to be made. If the Government wants to spend more in a certain area, or tax less in another, it needs to offset that by doing less in other areas.' "We don't want to see this boom and bust cycle that has plagued Irish fiscal policy for the last 40 or 50 years," Mr Coffey told the Oireachtas Budgetary Oversight Committee. The council also identified three key challenges for the Government, with these being an ageing population, the need to manage Ireland's climate transition, and infrastructure, which Ifac said is 'about 25% behind [Ireland's] peers'. The budgetary watchdog issued four key recommendations to the Government, the first of which was the coalition's need to reduce the ups and downs of the economic cycle. 'This means showing restraint when the economy is strong and being more generous when the economy is struggling,' Mr Coffey told committee members. Second, the Government was urged to set spending limits, net of tax changes, that it believes are sustainable to reduce the vagaries of annual pressure as Budget Day approaches. Third, Ifac urged the Government to focus on competitiveness and infrastructure, adding: 'While there is uncertainty over many issues, the shortage of infrastructure will need to be addressed regardless of what the international environment looks like.' Lastly, the watchdog has urged the Government to improve how it forecasts spending, calling out what it called a failure to account for overspending in 2024 when planning for this year. 'This created unrealistic budget figures from the beginning - a problem that keeps recurring,' said Mr Coffey. 'To avoid repeating this mistake, Budget 2026 and future medium-term plans must start with accurate baseline figures that include all likely overspends in 2025. Otherwise, spending projections will be wrong from the outset.'
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
New US ambassador to Ireland takes office, thanking friend Donald Trump
New Jersey businessman Edward S Walsh officially assumed the office of US ambassador to Ireland on Tuesday. Speaking after a ceremony at Áras an Uachtaráin, Mr Walsh called his new position 'the honour of a lifetime'. 'I am truly grateful to my friend, President Donald J Trump , for his trust in me' he added. 'The United States and Ireland enjoy a relationship rooted in friendship, strengthened by partnership and enriched by deep people-to-people ties.' READ MORE Mr Walsh said he is committed to building on that foundation and 'working closely with our Irish partners to advance our mutual interests'. [ Ireland 'out of step' with US on Israel, ambassador nominee told Opens in new window ] He was nominated to the position by President Trump in December. In making the nomination, Mr Trump called Mr Walsh 'a champion golfer' who would be 'a very good asset for an ambassador to Ireland to have'. Mr Walsh was confirmed by the US Senate for the position in June, with 57 to 38 votes in his favour. He was introduced as 'one of the closest friends that President Trump has' by Republican senator Lindsey Graham during a Senate foreign relations committee hearing in May. Mr Walsh has been a member of the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Previously, he was the founder and president of the Walsh Company, which provides construction, project management and environmental services. He also served as chairman of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority for eight years, overseeing educational infrastructure throughout the state. The appointment marks his first foray into diplomacy. Mr Walsh takes over from Claire Cronin , an appointment of former president Joe Biden, who had previously served in Massachusetts state politics.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Two people allegedly involved in surveillance of man at centre of HR firms ‘spying' dispute named
Two people who were allegedly involved in surveilling and harassing the man at the centre of the 'spying' row between two rival HR giants have been added as defendants in a High Court case related to the affair. Retired private investigator, Mark Murran, otherwise known as Rock Investigations, was allegedly the driver of a car involved in following and surveilling Keith O'Brien, a former Dublin based payroll manager with Rippling, a US-headquartered multibillion-dollar HR software provider, the court heard. Cliona Woods of Dublin based Gotham Services was allegedly involved in organising 'discreet surveillance'. Both were joined as defendants in Mr O'Brien's action over the matter. Both 'categorically refute' Mr O'Brien's allegations of intimidation and harassment and say the surveillance was discreet, their barrister John O'Regan told the court on Tuesday. READ MORE The case was back before Mr Justice Brian Cregan to deal with a number of applications in advance of the hearing of the case, including changing the defendants from 'persons unknown' to the two named defendants. It was also back in to consider whether Deel Inc, the other US based HR firm involved, should also be joined to the case. Deel allegedly paid Mr O'Brien, of Balrothery in north Dublin, to pass on Rippling's trade secrets to it, a claim it denies. Imogen McGrath SC, for Mr O'Brien, said the defendants had consented to an order not to surveil Mr O'Brien pending determination of the proceedings. Counsel said she was not making an application to join Deel as the purpose of the case was to resolve the dispute between her client and the defendants. There may also be a third defendant but her side needed time to write to that potential defendant, she said. Counsel also said there was a significant dispute over whether the surveillance amounted to harassment which the defendants say it did not. Mr Justice Cregan said he had been mulling over the issue and he was considering joining Deel at the motion of the court. While this was against the wishes of the O'Brien side, he did it in the context of an earlier claim that the surveillance was an interference with the administration of justice as Mr O'Brien is a defendant and witness in separate proceedings being brought over the alleged spying affair by Rippling against Deel. It was also in circumstances where Deel's lawyers had, in a pre-litigation letter in reply to Mr O'Brien's solicitor, said it had no knowledge of the particular alleged surveillance being carried out. 'Now that letter is either a blatant lie or a misrepresentation', the judge said. He said the defendants were employed by Deel which meant it was directly implicated. Ms McGrath asked the court to first allow the parties (her client and Deel) to exchange pleadings in the normal way. Paul Gardiner SC, for Deel, said he took 'grave exception to what the court said'. He believed the court should not be pronouncing on a letter as misrepresentation until it had heard all the facts. His side had written that letter according to what it believed to be true at the time, he said. If the plaintiff says it did not want Deel joined, it was not for the court to say it should, he said. His client had actually invited the O'Brien side to do so but it chose not to. Counsel also pointed out that Mr O'Brien has entered into a co-operation agreement with Rippling, has agreed not to seek any reliefs against him in the separate Rippling/Deel case and has waived all claims against him. The judge said he knew that joining a defendant to proceedings at the court's own motion was an exceptional jurisdiction but that was in the circumstances of the allegations of intimidation and a letter which appeared to be manifestly misleading. He said he wanted to reflect on the matter and will decide at the end of the week whether to hear submissions from the parties on the issue. He also said given that Mr Gardiner accepted the letter was incorrect, he did not see why counsel took 'such umbrage at my interpretation'. Ms McGrath said she thought Mr Gardiner 'is making a mountain out of a very small molehill'. He continued the injunctions restraining surveillance of Mr O'Brien and requiring the defendants to preserve any evidence which may be used in the case. He would also hear an application on Friday by the defendants requiring Mr O'Brien to preserve evidence.
