Settle, Mediate or Go to Court After a Car Accident Claim in Ireland?

Whether to settle a car accident claim or go to court in Ireland depends on three measurable factors: how closely the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) assessment matches the Personal Injuries Guidelines (2021) [1], the strength of your medical evidence for complex or multiple injuries, and the financial risk of adverse costs under Section 51A, PIAB Act 2003 (Enacted 2007) [2]. Since December 2024, a third resolution path (free IRB mediation for motor claims) means this is no longer a binary decision.

This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different and outcomes vary. Consult a qualified solicitor for advice specific to your situation.

95%+ settle: Of claims entering litigation, over 95% resolve at a settlement meeting, not in a courtroom. ⁴

Section 51A risk: Reject IRB + fail to beat it in court = pay both sides' costs from rejection date. PIAB Act s.51A

Motor mediation: Free, voluntary, about 3 months to resolve. Launched Dec 2024 for all RTA claims. ⁴

Legal cost gap: About €23,000 average for litigated claims vs about €1,000 through the IRB. ³

Ireland, not UK: Unlike England and Wales, all Irish PI claims (except medical negligence) must go through the IRB before court. There is no UK equivalent.

Delaney ruling (2024): Supreme Court confirmed judges are bound by the same PI Guidelines as the IRB. Chasing higher general damages alone is now high-risk.

Contents

What are the three resolution paths for your car accident claim?

There are three ways to resolve a car accident claim in Ireland: accept the IRB assessment, use the IRB's free mediation service (available for motor claims since December 2024), or reject and proceed to court. Most guides frame this as a binary choice: settle or go to court. That framing became outdated in December 2024 when the IRB (formerly the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, or PIAB, until 2023) launched its free mediation service for motor liability claims under the ⁵. We call this the Three-Path Resolution Test: before deciding, map your claim against all three routes, not just two.

Comparison of the three resolution paths for car accident claims in Ireland

Factor	Path 1: Accept IRB assessment	Path 2: IRB mediation	Path 3: Court proceedings
Typical timeline	About 9–11 months (assessment period)	About 3 months once both parties opt in	18–36 months (varies by court level)
Average legal costs	About €1,950–€2,950	No additional cost (IRB-provided)	About €23,000 (claimant-side average)
Who decides?	IRB assessor (paper-based)	Neutral accredited mediator + both parties	Judge (after hearing oral evidence)
Compensation range	Guidelines-based assessment	Flexible: agreed between parties	Guidelines-based + judicial uplift for multiple injuries
Section 51A risk?	None (claim resolved)	None (no assessment rejected)	Yes, if you rejected an accepted assessment
Binding?	Yes (Order to Pay)	Yes (same force as court order)	Yes (court judgment)
Best for	Clear single injury, fair assessment, need for speed	Partial disputes, complex claims, both parties willing	Disputed liability, severe injuries, IRB significantly undervalued

Sources: ³; IRB Annual Report 2024 (July 2025) [4]; Kennedys Law: IRB Mediation (June 2024) [6].

Which path fits your situation?

Your situation	Recommended path	Why
IRB assessment matches Guidelines, single injury, liability clear	Accept IRB	Court is unlikely to beat the Guidelines ceiling post-Delaney. Section 51A risk outweighs potential gain.
Respondent disputes liability entirely or claims contributory negligence	Court	The IRB cannot adjudicate fault. A judge must hear evidence to establish legal responsibility.
Multiple overlapping injuries and the IRB uplift feels low	Court or mediation	Holistic judicial uplift (Keogh, Zaganczyk) may exceed the IRB's algorithmic calculation.
Partial dispute (e.g. bracket disagreement) and both sides willing to talk	IRB mediation	Resolves in about 3 months, no cost, no Section 51A exposure, binding if agreed.
Both you and the respondent rejected the assessment	Court (lower risk)	No Section 51A penalty when the respondent also rejected. Standard costs rules apply.
Substantial future losses (career change, long-term care, ongoing rehab)	Court	Complex special damages benefit from detailed oral evidence and expert testimony.

The Three-Path Resolution Test is simple. First, does the IRB assessment fairly reflect your injuries and losses? If yes, accept. Second, is there a partial dispute (say contributory negligence, or a bracket disagreement) that both sides might resolve through structured discussion? If yes, consider mediation. Third, is there a fundamental disagreement about who was at fault, or are your multiple injuries clearly undervalued by the IRB's algorithm? Only then does court make financial sense.

↑ Back to top

What does the data show about settlement vs litigation outcomes in Ireland?

Litigated claims produce approximately 60% higher compensation for pain and suffering than IRB awards, but average legal costs of about €23,000 mean that for modest single-injury claims, claimants may net less through court than through the IRB. The Central Bank's National Claims Information Database (NCID) gives the clearest picture of how car accident claims resolve in Ireland. The numbers reveal a complex trade-off, not a simple "court pays more" story.

In the first half of 2024, only 17% of motor injury claims settled through the IRB. Approximately 71% were resolved through litigation, and those litigated claims accounted for 89% of total injury settlement costs. ³

The Bar Council's analysis of the same NCID data, presented in the Irish Times (May 2025) [7], found that compared with IRB awards, litigating and settling produced approximately 60% higher compensation for pain and suffering and roughly 500% higher compensation for financial loss. Insurance Ireland, responding in the same piece, argued that IRB outcomes are comparable when legal costs are factored in.

To put a concrete number on it: the median motor award through the IRB in 2024 was €12,541, down 30% from pre-Guidelines levels. IRB Motor Report (May 2025) [22] Litigated motor claims under €100,000 averaged roughly 25% higher in compensation, but after legal costs of €23,000 are deducted, a claimant with a modest soft-tissue injury may net less through court than through the IRB. ³

The practical takeaway: litigation can produce significantly more compensation, but only when the potential uplift is large enough to absorb the legal costs and the Section 51A risk. For modest single-injury claims where the IRB assessment aligns with the Guidelines, the maths often favours acceptance.

When does settling make sense?

Settling makes sense when liability is clear, your injuries have stabilised, the IRB assessment falls within the correct Guidelines bracket, and the potential court uplift is small relative to legal costs and Section 51A exposure. Accepting an IRB assessment or a reasonable settlement offer is typically the right call when several conditions align. Liability is clear and not in dispute. Your injuries have stabilised with a definitive medical prognosis. The assessment falls within the correct bracket of the Personal Injuries Guidelines (2021) (which replaced the older Book of Quantum in 2021) ¹. Your special damages (medical bills, lost earnings, out-of-pocket costs) are fully captured. And the potential uplift from going to court is small relative to the legal costs and Section 51A exposure. ²

Speed matters too. If mortgage payments, medical bills, or household costs are mounting while you recover, the certainty of a settlement (typically paid within 4 to 6 weeks of acceptance) may outweigh a speculative chance of a higher award 18 to 36 months later.

One point that catches people out: settlement is final. Once you accept an IRB assessment and an Order to Pay is issued (the binding document that requires the respondent to pay the agreed amount), or once you sign a settlement agreement during litigation, you cannot reopen the claim. If your injuries worsen, if you need surgery that was not anticipated, or if long-term consequences emerge years later, you have no recourse. This is why settling before your medical prognosis has stabilised carries real risk, and why your solicitor will often advise waiting until your treating doctor can give a definitive outlook.

This is not the same as accepting the first offer an insurer puts on the table. A direct insurer offer before the IRB stage is not an IRB assessment, and it does not carry the same Section 51A implications. For a detailed guide on evaluating whether a specific offer is fair, see our page on settlement offers explained.

When is going to court worth the risk?

Proceeding to court makes financial sense in a narrower range of circumstances than most people assume. NCID data ³ shows that over 95% of litigated claims settle before the hearing, so the decision to issue proceedings is less about reaching a courtroom and more about forcing meaningful negotiation. ⁴ The two strongest reasons to take that step relate to disputed liability and undervalued multiple injuries.

Disputed liability. The IRB cannot determine fault. If the respondent denies responsibility (for example, in a complex junction accident or roundabout collision), the only way to establish legal fault is through a court hearing where a judge hears witness testimony, examines Garda reports, and reviews engineering or CCTV evidence.

Undervalued multiple injuries. Where you have several concurrent injuries (say a fractured knee, persistent lower back pain, and significant psychological trauma), a court may apply a more generous judicial "uplift" than the IRB's paper-based algorithmic calculation. More on this below.

Substantial special damages. The IRB sometimes undervalues complex future losses: ongoing rehabilitation, career-changing loss of earnings, or long-term care needs. These claims benefit from the detailed oral advocacy that a court hearing allows. For proof requirements, see our pages on care and assistance costs and rehabilitation costs.

Prognosis still uncertain. If your injuries have not stabilised (perhaps you are awaiting surgery or the long-term outlook is unclear), settling too early locks in compensation based on incomplete information.

Psychological injuries assessed on paper alone. IRB data shows psychiatric-related claims grew from roughly 5% of applications in 2021 to about 14% by late 2024. ^{4 3} The IRB assesses these from written medical reports only. A psychiatrist's written prognosis often reads as clinical and understated. In court, a claimant can describe how post-traumatic stress or anxiety disorder affects their daily life through oral testimony, which judges typically find more persuasive when calibrating the uplift. For car accident claims involving significant psychological impact alongside physical injuries, this is a strong factor favouring court.

The complexity shift at the IRB itself. The IRB reports that the proportion of moderate to severe injuries it assesses jumped from 14% in 2022 to 20% in 2024. ^{4 22} The Board was designed as a fast-track body for uncomplicated claims. As it handles more complex multi-injury cases, the gap between its algorithmic paper-based assessment and what a judge would award after hearing oral evidence may be widening. This is worth discussing with your solicitor if your injuries fall into the moderate-to-severe range.

What is IRB mediation and how does it work for car accident claims?

The IRB launched its mediation service for motor liability personal injury claims on 12 December 2024, under powers granted by the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 (Enacted Dec 2022) [5]. This followed earlier rollouts for employers' liability (December 2023) and public liability (May 2024). Unlike in England and Wales, where there is no equivalent mandatory assessment body, Ireland's IRB now offers both assessment and mediation as alternatives to court.

How it works: when filing an IRB application, a claimant can opt into mediation. If the respondent also agrees, a neutral, accredited mediator (drawn from the IRB's panel) facilitates discussions between both parties. There is no additional cost for this service. ⁶

Early data is promising. The IRB reports that 35% of motor claimants opted in during the initial period, and mediated claims resolved within approximately 3 months on average, compared with 11.2 months for the standard assessment process. A mediation agreement carries the same legal force as a court order. Law Society Gazette (July 2025) [8]

In our experience since the motor mediation launch, this third path works well for claims with partial disputes. For example, where the respondent accepts liability but argues contributory negligence, or where both parties broadly agree on the injury category but disagree on the appropriate bracket within the Guidelines. We have seen several car accident claims resolve through mediation in weeks rather than the 12 to 18 months court would have taken.

What is the Section 51A costs risk when you reject an IRB assessment?

Section 51A of the PIAB Act 2003 means that if you reject an IRB assessment the respondent accepted and the court awards you the same or less, you lose the right to recover your legal costs and may have to pay the defendant's costs from the rejection date. This is the single most misunderstood factor in the settle-or-court decision. Section 51A of the PIAB Act 2003 ², inserted by the 2007 amendment, creates a specific financial penalty for claimants who reject an IRB assessment and then fail to do better in court.

How it works: If you reject an IRB assessment that the respondent accepted, and the court later awards you the same amount or less, two things happen. First, you cannot recover your legal costs from the defendant, breaking the normal "loser pays" rule in Irish litigation. Second, the court can order you to pay the defendant's costs from the date you rejected the assessment. Citizens Information (Updated 2025) [9]

Since February 2023, the rejected-and-accepted assessment is also treated as a deemed lodgement, equivalent to the defendant physically paying that sum into court. This amplifies the costs exposure. Addleshaw Goddard (2023) [10]

The timing consequence is often missed. Before February 2023, the costs clock only started running when the defendant made a separate lodgement during court proceedings, which might be months or years after the IRB stage. Now, under amendments introduced by the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 ^{5 10}, the clock effectively starts from the date you reject an IRB assessment the respondent accepted. If your case then takes 18 to 36 months to reach trial, you are exposed to adverse costs for that entire period, not just from a later lodgement date. This makes the financial downside of rejection substantially larger than it was before the 2023 amendments.

Worked example: when the maths turns against you

Consider this scenario. The IRB assesses your motor claim at €20,000. The respondent's insurer accepts. You reject, believing your claim is worth more. Your solicitor's fees come to €8,000. The defendant's costs from the rejection date to trial total €12,000. The judge, applying the Personal Injuries Guidelines, awards you €19,000.

Because your court award (€19,000) is less than the IRB assessment (€20,000), Section 51A applies. You receive €19,000 in compensation, but you owe your own solicitor €8,000 and may be ordered to pay the defendant's €12,000 in costs. Net result: you are €1,000 in debt, despite winning your case.

Accept €20,000 IRB assessment

+€19,000

€20,000 assessment
− €1,000 IRB-stage costs
= €19,000 in your pocket
Paid within 4–6 weeks

Reject, court awards €19,000 (s.51A)

−€1,000

€19,000 court award
− €8,000 your costs
− €12,000 defendant's costs
= €1,000 in debt
After 18–36 months

The contributory negligence trap

There is a further scenario that catches claimants off guard. Suppose the IRB assesses your claim at €20,000. The respondent accepts. You reject and go to court. The judge agrees your injuries are worth €20,000, but finds you were 25% at fault (perhaps you were not wearing a seatbelt, or you contributed to the accident). Under the Civil Liability Act 1961, your award is reduced to €15,000. ^{2 9} You have now failed to beat the €20,000 IRB assessment by €5,000, triggering Section 51A, even though the judge valued your injuries at exactly the same level the IRB did. The lesson: if there is any realistic prospect that a court might find contributory negligence, the Section 51A risk multiplies, because even a "correct" valuation becomes a losing one after the percentage reduction.

The honest assessment before rejecting any IRB figure: is the realistic uplift at trial large enough to cover the combined costs risk? In 2024, approximately 50% of claimants accepted their IRB assessments. For motor claims specifically, the acceptance rate was 47%. ⁴

One practitioner point that no guide mentions: you have 28 days to accept or reject, but the respondent has only 21 days. ^{2 9} If you wait until after day 21 before notifying the IRB of your decision, you will know whether the respondent has accepted or rejected. This matters because Section 51A only applies when the respondent accepted and you rejected. If the respondent also rejected, there is no Section 51A penalty and court becomes less financially risky. Timing your response to the end of the 28-day window is a small tactical advantage worth discussing with your solicitor.

What if the respondent also rejects the assessment?

This scenario is more common than most guides suggest. Approximately half of respondents reject the IRB assessment. ⁴ When the respondent rejects, the IRB issues an Authorisation: a formal document granting the claimant the right to issue court proceedings within six months (plus any remaining statute of limitations time under Section 50 of the PIAB Act 2003). The critical difference: because the respondent did not accept the assessment, Section 51A does not apply. Standard costs rules govern instead, meaning the normal "loser pays" principle applies without the additional penalty. This materially changes the risk calculus. If you believe the IRB undervalued your claim and the respondent also rejected, court becomes a more balanced proposition because the downside is smaller.

↑ Back to top

What changed after the Delaney Supreme Court ruling?

The Supreme Court's April 2024 ruling in Delaney v PIAB confirmed that judges are bound by the same Personal Injuries Guidelines the IRB uses. This means rejecting an IRB assessment purely to chase higher general damages for a single, uncomplicated injury is now a high-risk strategy. The ruling redirected justified litigation toward liability disputes, complex special damages, and the multiple-injury uplift.

Major insurers have responded accordingly. FBD Group's 2024 half-year results confirmed that the Supreme Court ruling "reaffirmed assumptions regarding the reducing cost of injury claims." FBD Holdings (2024) [12] This corporate certainty means insurers are less likely to offer generous settlements under threat of court, because the threat of a runaway judicial award has been neutralised by the highest court in the State.

There is a further tactical shift we have observed since Delaney. Insurers are now making Section 17 offers and formal lodgements earlier in proceedings than they did before the ruling. ^{12 3} Previously, many defence teams waited until the week of trial to lodge. With the Guidelines ceiling now confirmed as binding, insurers have greater confidence in the accuracy of their reserve figures and are lodging sooner. For claimants, this means the adverse costs clock under a lodgement starts ticking earlier, extending the period of financial exposure if you ultimately fail to beat it at trial.

The practical consequence for claimants: rejecting an IRB assessment purely to chase higher general damages for a clear, single-injury claim is now a high-risk strategy. However, this does not mean court is never worthwhile. The Delaney ruling shifted the focus of justified litigation toward disputes about liability, contested medical prognosis, complex special damages, and the multiple-injury uplift discussed below.

Can multiple injuries justify rejecting an IRB assessment?

Yes. While single-injury valuations are tightly bound to the Guidelines, multiple-injury cases remain contested territory, and this is where rejecting an IRB assessment can be strategically justified.

The Guidelines instruct assessors to identify the "dominant" (most significant) injury, value it, and then apply an "uplift" for secondary injuries. The uplift should reflect the additional pain and limitations caused by the lesser injuries, while avoiding simple addition of each injury's maximum bracket value. ¹

For injury-specific guidance, see our pages on fracture claims, nerve damage claims, and psychological injury claims.

What are lodgements and Calderbank offers, and why do they matter?

A lodgement is a sum paid into court by the defendant's insurer to create costs pressure, and a Calderbank offer is a without-prejudice-save-as-to-costs written settlement offer under Section 169(1)(f) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. If your claim proceeds past the IRB stage to court, two defence tactics governed by Irish court rules can dramatically shift the financial risk. ^{9 15} Most claimant-facing guides fail to explain them.

Lodgements (Order 22, Rules of the Superior Courts). A lodgement is a sum of money that a defendant's insurer physically pays into court, or a formal tender offer, intended to pressure the claimant into settling. The trial judge does not know the amount until after delivering judgment. If the judge's award equals or falls below the lodgement, you "fail to beat" it. Consequence: you lose your entitlement to costs from the lodgement date and may be ordered to pay the defendant's costs from that date forward. ⁹

Calderbank offers. A Calderbank offer is a written settlement offer made "without prejudice save as to costs," put on a statutory footing by Section 169(1)(f), Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (Enacted 2015) [15]. Unlike lodgements, these can be deployed at any stage of proceedings and do not require physically lodging funds. If you reject one and fail to beat it at trial, the court can have regard to the offer when deciding costs. Hayes Solicitors (2023) [16]

A lodgement is not the same as a settlement offer. A settlement offer is a negotiation tool. A lodgement is a strategic cost weapon that creates financial consequences if you fail to beat it at trial. Your solicitor's job is to assess whether the lodged amount fairly reflects your claim's value. For detail on how legal costs are calculated, see our page on solicitor fees and legal costs.

What actually happens at a settlement meeting?

A settlement meeting in Ireland typically takes place at the Four Courts in Dublin, where your solicitor and barrister negotiate privately with the insurer's legal team on your behalf. You do not face the other party or a judge. The prospect of "going to court" terrifies many claimants. The reality is that the vast majority of litigated car accident claims in Ireland never reach a courtroom. ³ They resolve at a settlement meeting, often at the Four Courts in Dublin. ¹⁷

A settlement meeting is not a trial. There is no judge, no witness box, and no cross-examination. You will not face the other driver or their legal team directly.

The typical process: You arrive and meet your solicitor and barrister in a consultation room. Your barrister will have reviewed all medical reports, the defence file, and any lodgements or Section 17 offers. A Section 17 offer is a mandatory written notice of settlement terms under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (s.17), which the trial judge only sees after delivering judgment, but which heavily influences the final allocation of legal costs. The barristers for both sides then meet separately to negotiate, sometimes over several hours. Your barrister returns with updates and any revised offers. If agreement is reached, the settlement is recorded and the case is struck out. If not, the case proceeds to hearing.

If the settlement meeting fails and the case goes to a full hearing: Irish personal injury trials are judge-only (there is no jury). Your barrister presents your evidence. You may be asked to describe your injuries and how the accident happened under oath. The defendant's barrister will cross-examine you, typically focusing on your medical history, the consistency of your account, and any surveillance evidence. Medical experts may give testimony for both sides. In shorter cases the judge will deliver judgment the same day. This is the scenario most claimants fear, but fewer than 5% of litigated claims ever reach it.

A large proportion of settlements occur on the morning of the scheduled hearing, sometimes called settling "on the steps of the court." In our experience with motor claims in the Dublin courts, this happens because both sides face the imminent, non-recoverable costs of deploying counsel and expert witnesses, which concentrates minds. Analysis by the Self-Insured Taskforce confirms that the Dublin High Court listing system (where up to 30 cases may be listed for a limited number of judges on any given day) creates additional pressure to resolve matters before the hearing. SITF Submission to LSRA (2020) [17]

The reassuring point: issuing proceedings is most often a calculated step to force an insurer into realistic negotiations, not an irreversible commitment to a contested trial.

↑ Back to top

Which court hears your case? (Current and proposed thresholds)

The court level affects costs, timelines, and formality. Issuing in the wrong court carries penalties. If you bring a claim in the Circuit Court and the judge awards below the District Court threshold, you may face adverse costs orders. Unlike the England and Wales system (County Court / High Court), Ireland uses a three-tier structure for personal injury. ¹⁸

Personal injury court jurisdiction in Ireland (current and proposed under the Civil Reform Bill 2025)

Court	Current PI limit	Proposed (Civil Reform Bill 2025)	Typical timeline
District Court	Up to €15,000	Up to €20,000	About 9 months
Circuit Court	€15,000 to €60,000	€15,000 to €100,000	12 to 18 months
High Court	Over €60,000 (no cap)	Over €100,000 (no cap)	2+ years

Current limits: Courts Service (2024) [18]. Proposed changes: Law Society Gazette (Jan 2026) [19]. The Civil Reform Bill 2025 has not yet been enacted at the time of checking.

If enacted, the new thresholds mean that a claim valued at €80,000 (which currently must be issued in the High Court) could be heard in the Circuit Court, where proceedings are less formal and legal costs are lower.

How do 2025–2026 legislative changes affect your decision?

Several developments are reshaping the Irish settle-vs-court calculus. ^{20 21} None have fully landed yet, but each may influence the timing and strategy of your claim.

Proposed 16.7% uplift to the Personal Injuries Guidelines. The Judicial Council's PI Guidelines Committee recommended an inflationary uplift in December 2024. The draft amendments were submitted to the Minister for Justice in February 2025. If approved by the Oireachtas, this would increase compensation bands across the board, potentially making current IRB assessments look lower relative to the new bands. As of March 2026, the original 2021 Guidelines continue to apply. Judicial Council (Dec 2024) [20]

Civil Reform Bill 2025. Proposes raising the District Court PI jurisdiction to €20,000 and the Circuit Court to €100,000. This would reduce the number of claims forced into the more expensive High Court. The General Scheme was published in January 2026. ¹⁹

Insurance Reform Action Plan 2025–2029. Published in July 2025, this Government plan proposes strengthening the IRB's remit, including potentially making the mediation process a default pathway and allowing claims to be remitted back to the IRB during litigation where new medical evidence emerges. CKT (Jan 2026) [21]

Psychiatric injury claims rising. IRB data shows psychiatric-related applications increased from roughly 5% of total claims in 2021 to about 14% by late 2024. These claims often involve complex evidence that is difficult to assess on paper, which may favour the oral advocacy available in court. ⁴

Related questions you may have next

What if the insurer makes a direct offer before the IRB assessment? A direct insurer offer is not an IRB assessment and does not trigger Section 51A. You are under no obligation to accept it. In practice, early insurer offers are often below what the IRB would assess. Speak with a solicitor before accepting any pre-IRB offer.

Can I use the Three-Path Resolution Test if my injuries have not settled yet? You can, but the test works best when your medical prognosis is clear. If you are still in active treatment, it may be worth waiting until your condition stabilises before making a final decision. The IRB can extend its assessment period if injuries have not settled. ⁴

Does mediation work for hit-and-run or uninsured driver claims? IRB mediation requires both parties to opt in. If the respondent is the MIBI (for uninsured driver claims), mediation availability depends on MIBI's willingness to participate.

References

1. Personal Injuries Guidelines (2021), Judicial Council
2. Section 51A, Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, Irish Statute Book
3. National Claims Information Database (NCID), Central Bank of Ireland
4. IRB Annual Report 2024, Injuries Resolution Board
5. Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022, Irish Statute Book
6. IRB Mediation in Ireland, Kennedys Law (June 2024)
7. Is going to court worth it for personal injuries claimants? Irish Times (May 2025)
8. Claims figures stabilising after COVID, Law Society Gazette (July 2025)
9. Mediation and settlement of claims, Citizens Information (Updated 2025)
10. Tender Mercies: reform of PI procedures in Ireland, Addleshaw Goddard (2023)
11. Supreme Court confirms PI Guidelines are Legally Binding, Dillon Eustace (2024)
12. FBD Holdings PLC Half Yearly Report H1 2024
13. Calculating Damages for Multiple Injuries, Mason Hayes & Curran
14. Assessing Compensation Uplifts for Multiple Injuries, Lacey Solicitors
15. Section 169, Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, Irish Statute Book
16. Calderbank Offers & LSRA 2015, Hayes Solicitors
17. Self-Insured Taskforce Submission to LSRA (PDF)
18. Understanding the Courts System, Courts Service of Ireland
19. Civil-law bill includes judicial-review overhaul, Law Society Gazette (Jan 2026)
20. Draft amendments to the Personal Injuries Guidelines, Judicial Council (Dec 2024)
21. Personal Injury Law in Ireland: 2025 Review and 2026 Prospects, CKT (Jan 2026)
22. IRB Motor Liability Research Report (May 2025), Law Society Gazette

Common questions