The Personal Injury Court Process in Ireland

Quick Reference: The Personal Injury Court Process at a Glance

Primary statutes

Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004; Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (renamed by the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022)

Primary court rules

Order 1A RSC (High Court); Circuit Court Rules Order 5A (SI 526/2005)

Gateway

Injuries Resolution Board authorisation (or HC131/HC132 in clinical negligence)

Court venues

District Court: up to €15,000 · Circuit Court: up to €60,000 (PI) · High Court: unlimited

Standard of proof

Balance of probabilities

Pre-action letter

1 month from cause of action (Section 8 CLCA 2004, as amended 28 January 2019)

Verifying affidavit

21 days from pleading (Section 14 CLCA 2004)

Formal offer window

14 days minimum (Section 17 CLCA 2004)

Statute of limitations

2 years less one day from cause of action (Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991, s.3)

Recent reform

SI 363/2024 (interrogatories, 31 July 2024); HC131/HC132 (clinical negligence, 28 April 2025); Draft Guidelines 16.7% uplift (Judicial Council, not yet enacted); Civil Reform Bill 2025

Contents

What the Personal Injury Court Process Is

Quick answer: The personal injury court process in Ireland is the statutory and procedural framework, set out principally in the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and Order 1A of the Rules of the Superior Courts, by which a personal injuries action moves from an Injuries Resolution Board authorisation through pleadings, discovery, and trial to judgment.

The personal injury court process in Ireland is the body of statutory rules, court rules, and judicial practice that governs how a personal injuries action moves from pleadings to judgment. Its statutory core sits in the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, with procedural detail in Order 1A of the Rules of the Superior Courts for High Court actions and the equivalent Circuit Court Rules for lower-value claims. In all but clinical negligence and a small set of excluded categories, the process is gated by an authorisation from the Injuries Resolution Board, formerly known as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board until rebranded under the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022.

What distinguishes the Irish personal injury process from ordinary civil litigation is the density of plaintiff-specific procedural obligations. Section 8 of the 2004 Act compresses the pre-action letter into a one-month window. Section 10 requires precise pleading of injuries and special damages. Section 14 requires every assertion to be verified on oath within 21 days. Section 17 imports a formal offer regime that overrides the common law approach to settlement. Section 26 mandates dismissal where evidence is knowingly false. These are not soft procedural conventions; they carry mandatory costs consequences and, in the case of Section 26, the outright loss of an otherwise meritorious claim.

The 2024-2026 period has brought the most significant procedural change in two decades. SI 363/2024 reformed interrogatories. Practice Directions HC131 and HC132 reorganised clinical negligence litigation. The Personal Injuries Guidelines received a Board-approved draft 16.7% uplift that has not yet been enacted. The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025 previews further modernisation. This reference catalogues each stage and the rules currently in force.

The Personal Injuries Summons (Section 10 CLCA 2004 + Order 1A RSC)

A personal injuries action is initiated by a personal injuries summons rather than a general plenary summons. The summons is the formal originating document and its content is fixed by both statute and court rule. Per Section 10(2) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004:

"A personal injuries summons shall specify— (a) the plaintiff's name, the address at which he or she ordinarily resides and his or her occupation, (b) the personal public service number allocated and issued to the plaintiff under section 223 (inserted by section 14 of the Act of 1998) of the Act of 1993, (c) the defendant's name, the address at which he or she ordinarily resides (if known to the plaintiff) and his or her occupation (if known to the plaintiff), (d) the injuries to the plaintiff alleged to have been occasioned by the wrong of the defendant, (e) full particulars of all items of special damage in respect of which the plaintiff is making a claim, (f) full particulars of the acts of the defendant constituting the said wrong and the circumstances relating to the commission of the said wrong, (g) full particulars of each instance of negligence by the defendant."

Section 10(2), Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (irishstatutebook.ie). The cross-references in subsection (b) are to section 223 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993 (as inserted by section 14 of the Social Welfare Act 1998); the equivalent current provision is section 262 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.

In the High Court the document used is Form 1 of Appendix CC, while in the Circuit Court the equivalent is Form 2P appended to the Circuit Court Rules. Both forms cross-reference the same statutory contents requirement. Where the plaintiff is a minor under 18, the action is brought by a "next friend" and the summons must be supported by an Affidavit of Next Friend along with a certified copy of the minor's birth certificate.

Where the summons fails to plead the special damages or the wrongs alleged with sufficient particularity, the defendant is entitled to apply for further and better particulars under Order 19 RSC and, if not satisfied, to a strike-out for failure to comply. The Court of Appeal has consistently emphasised that Section 10's "full particulars" requirement is a substantive obligation, not a drafting nicety: the summons must enable the defendant to know the case it has to meet, not merely the category of claim.

Once issued, the summons must be served within 12 months. Where service is not effected within this window, the plaintiff may apply under Order 8 of the Rules of the Superior Courts for renewal. The test is "special circumstances", which the Court of Appeal in Murphy v HSE [2021] IECA 3 has confirmed is a substantively higher bar than the old "good reason" standard. Reasonable explanation, alone, does not suffice. The applicant must show special circumstances which justify the extension and which were not the fault of the plaintiff's own solicitor.

Court Jurisdiction and Venue Selection

Quick answer: Personal injury actions in Ireland are heard in the District Court (claims up to €15,000), the Circuit Court (up to €60,000), or the High Court (unlimited). Venue is dictated by the value of the claim, and the costs scale follows the venue.

Three court venues hear personal injury actions, separated by the value of the claim and the complexity of the issues. The District Court has limited jurisdiction. The Circuit Court handles the bulk of attritional injury litigation. The High Court hears catastrophic and complex matters. The current thresholds are:

Court jurisdiction thresholds for personal injury actions in Ireland (2026)

Venue	Civil jurisdiction	Personal injury jurisdiction	Typical claim profile
District Court	Up to €15,000	Up to €15,000 (post the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013)	Minor whiplash, low-value soft tissue claims
Circuit Court	Up to €75,000 (general civil)	Up to €60,000	Standard road traffic, public liability, workplace injury
High Court	Unlimited	Unlimited	Catastrophic injury, clinical negligence, complex liability or multi-defendant matters

Venue selection is strategically significant. Costs scales are venue-tied. A plaintiff who recovers €40,000 in the High Court will typically be confined to Circuit Court costs unless special circumstances exist, per Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 read with the long-standing principle in O'Connor v Bus Atha Cliath [2003] 4 IR 459. Trial speed also varies: the Circuit Court typically lists faster than the High Court Personal Injuries List, though listing pressure varies by circuit.

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 (General Scheme) contemplates further structural change including the consolidation of the Court of Appeal's role and revised jurisdictional thresholds. Until enacted, the thresholds above remain authoritative.

The Defence and Verifying Affidavit (Sections 11 and 14)

The defendant's response to a personal injuries summons must be more granular than a generic civil defence. Section 11 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 requires the defence to identify which allegations are admitted, which are denied, the basis of any denial, and the basis of any counterclaim. Section 13 reinforces the particularity requirement and extends it to all subsequent pleadings, including replies to particulars and schedules of special damages.

The defining procedural feature, however, is Section 14, which requires that every pleading containing an assertion of fact be verified by sworn affidavit. As substituted following the 2019 amendments effected by Section 13 of the Central Bank (National Claims Information Database) Act 2018:

"An affidavit under this section shall be lodged in court not later than— (a) 21 days after the service of the pleading concerned or such longer period as the court may direct or the parties may agree … (4A) Where there is a failure to comply with subsection (4), the court hearing the personal injuries action concerned shall— (a) draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper, and (b) where the interests of justice so require— (i) make no order as to the payment of costs to the party responsible for the failure, or (ii) deduct such amount from the costs that would, but for this subsection, be payable to the party responsible for the failure as it considers appropriate."

Section 14(4) and 14(4A), Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (subsection 4A inserted by section 13(3) of the Central Bank (National Claims Information Database) Act 2018, commenced 28 January 2019) (irishstatutebook.ie)

The deponent swears that the contents of the pleading are true to the best of their knowledge and belief. The affidavit is sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths or a practising solicitor who is not the deponent's own legal representative. The 2019 amendment did two things: it tightened the language from "may" to "shall" in respect of the court's cost-sanction obligation, and it imposed a parallel obligation on plaintiffs and defendants. Either side that misses the 21-day window faces mandatory consideration of cost penalties.

In practice, Section 14 disputes turn on whether the deponent was personally aware of the asserted facts. A solicitor signing on behalf of an out-of-jurisdiction defendant cannot verify matters within the defendant's knowledge alone, and the safer course is the appointment of a single deponent with direct knowledge of all material facts.

The same 2019 amendment also reshaped Section 8. The pre-action letter, which had been due "within 2 months from the date of the cause of action, or as soon as practicable thereafter", was substituted with a strict one-month rule and the word "may" was substituted for "shall" in the court's penalty obligation. The substituted text is:

"Where a plaintiff in a personal injuries action fails, without reasonable cause, to serve a notice in writing, before the expiration of one month from the date of the cause of action, … on the wrongdoer or alleged wrongdoer stating the nature of the wrong alleged to have been committed by him or her, the court hearing the action shall— (a) draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper, and (b) where the interests of justice so require— (i) make no order as to the payment of costs to the plaintiff, or (ii) deduct such amount from the costs that would, but for this section, be payable to the plaintiff as it considers appropriate."

Section 8(1), Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, as substituted by Section 13 of the Central Bank (National Claims Information Database) Act 2018, commenced 28 January 2019 (revisedacts.lawreform.ie)

The amendment was deliberate. The previous two-month window left a gap relative to the typical 30-day CCTV retention cycle. The one-month rule realigned the pre-action notification with the period during which the defendant's most readily available evidence remains accessible. SI 216/2019 amended Order 1A of the Rules of the Superior Courts to require any plaintiff who fails to serve the Section 8 notice within the one-month window to plead the reasonable cause for the failure in the personal injuries summons itself.

What changed in the 2019 amendment goes beyond the calendar. The substitution of "shall" for "may" removed the judicial discretion that had previously allowed late-served letters to escape consequence on a balancing exercise. After January 2019, the court hearing the action must consider the costs penalty. A nuance the official text does not capture is the interaction with the IRB process: a plaintiff who issues a Section 8 letter within one month but then waits months to apply to the IRB faces no Section 8 penalty, because the statutory clock runs from cause of action, not from IRB application.

Procedural position before and after the 2019 amendments (Section 13 of the Central Bank (National Claims Information Database) Act 2018, commenced 28 January 2019)

Procedural requirement	Pre-2019 (in force 2004 to January 2019)	Post-2019 (in force from 28 January 2019)
Pre-action letter window	2 months, or "as soon as practicable thereafter"	1 month strictly, with reasonable-cause pleading required if late
Court's response to late letter	"May" draw inferences; discretionary cost penalty	"Shall" draw inferences; "shall" consider cost penalty where interests of justice require
Verifying affidavit window	21 days, but enforcement weaker	21 days, with mandatory s. 14(4A) cost penalty consideration on default
Pleading reasonable-cause requirement	Not required in the summons itself	SI 216/2019 amended Order 1A to require explicit pleading of reasonable cause in the summons
Interaction with CCTV retention	Two-month window often exceeded typical 30-day CCTV cycle	One-month window matches the evidential retention period

Discovery (Order 31 RSC and Voluntary Procedure)

Discovery is the formal exchange of documents within each party's possession, power, or procurement that are relevant to the matters in issue. In personal injury actions, the categories ordinarily sought are predictable: medical records and treating practitioner notes, employment and earnings records for any loss of earnings claim, accident reports and incident logs, training records and risk assessments in workplace cases, and CCTV or photographic evidence where available.

The procedure under Order 31 RSC is two-staged. A party first issues a voluntary discovery letter specifying the categories sought, the relevance of each category, and the necessity of disclosure for the fair disposal of the matter. The letter is governed by Practice Direction HC112 in the High Court and by the equivalent Circuit Court provisions. If voluntary discovery is refused, the requesting party may apply on notice for a court order. The categories must be drawn with the precision dictated by SI 93/2009, which amended Order 31 to require itemised category descriptions and stated necessity.

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 General Scheme contemplates replacing discovery with a more focused "production of documents" regime modelled on the recommendations of the Kelly Report of October 2020. Until that Bill is enacted, Order 31 remains the operative framework.

Interrogatories: The 2024 Reform (SI 363/2024)

Interrogatories are written questions, usually answerable by a short factual statement or a yes-or-no, which one party may require another to answer on oath. Until 31 July 2024, interrogatories in High Court actions outside the Commercial List ordinarily required leave of the court. Most practitioners viewed them as an underused tool, available in theory but procedurally awkward in practice.

That changed with SI 363/2024, Rules of the Superior Courts (Interrogatories) 2024. The instrument replaced rules 1 to 11 of Order 31 with a new regime that permits a party, at any time after delivery of the statement of claim or defence, to deliver one set of up to 20 interrogatories without leave of the court. The Circuit Court parallel was effected by SI 432/2024.

The new rules contain several features practitioners must understand. First, interrogatories must be confined to "facts in issue, or facts reasonably relevant to establish facts in issue". They cannot be used to interrogate the other side on its evidence, its legal opinions, or its trial strategy. This substantive limit was reinforced shortly before the new rules came into effect by the High Court in Ryan v Haq & Ors [2024] IEHC 215 (Bradley J, 12 April 2024), which refused interrogatories that effectively asked the defendants to state a contractual position which was, in substance, a question of law. The principle survives intact under SI 363/2024.

Second, each interrogatory must include a brief statement of the reasons why the answer is necessary, either for disposing of the matter fairly or for saving costs. Third, the responding party has 21 days from delivery to file an affidavit answering the questions willing to answer and a notice of objection in respect of any others. Fourth, where more than 20 interrogatories are sought, or a second set is sought against the same party, leave is still required.

The strategic implication for personal injury practice is substantial. Liability admissions, knowledge of safety protocols, training records, and the existence of CCTV can now be tested by written question early in the action, before a discovery motion is even contemplated.

Expert Evidence: S.I. 391/1998 and the Harrington Undertaking

Expert evidence in Irish personal injury actions is governed by SI 391/1998 (inserting rules 45 to 51 into Order 39 of the Rules of the Superior Courts) and by the case management directions of the trial judge. Under the SI, parties must, in advance of trial, exchange schedules listing every expert witness intended to be called along with copies of their reports. The defendant must serve its responsive schedule within seven days of receipt of the plaintiff's schedule.

A tactical issue arises in the sequence of exchange. Defendants frequently seek the plaintiff's report before commissioning their own, on the basis that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof and must therefore go first. To prevent the plaintiff's expert report being shared with the defendant's own retained expert for the purpose of reverse-engineering a rebuttal, the practice has developed of requiring a specific undertaking. This undertaking is commonly described as the "Harrington Undertaking" after the High Court reasoning in Harrington v Cork County Council, and it binds the defendant's legal team to retain the plaintiff's report on their side of the firewall and not to provide it to the defendant's expert.

The Court of Appeal in O'Flynn v HSE & Ors [2022] IECA 83 has clarified aspects of the disclosure regime, including the boundary between expert reports that must be exchanged and material that remains privileged. Practice in the High Court Personal Injuries List has converged around joint expert meetings and joint reports identifying points of agreement and dispute, a model that has been formalised in clinical negligence by HC131.

Mediation (Section 15 CLCA 2004 and Mediation Act 2017)

Mediation runs in parallel with court-stage litigation through three distinct doorways. The earliest is the Injuries Resolution Board's own mediation service, which from December 2024 was extended to cover road traffic claims, having previously been confined to public liability and employer liability matters. Where mediation succeeds at the IRB stage, the parties never reach court at all.

The second doorway is Section 15 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which empowers the court hearing a personal injuries action to direct a mediation conference at the request of any party. The court may stay the proceedings to enable that conference to take place.

The third doorway is the Mediation Act 2017, Section 14 of which requires every solicitor to advise their client of the availability of mediation before issuing proceedings, and Section 16 of which empowers the court at any stage to invite the parties to mediate. The court may take a refusal to mediate into account when making costs orders, subject to the principle that a refusal must be unreasonable in the circumstances.

In clinical negligence, Practice Direction HC131 has gone further still. As discussed below, the applicant for a trial date in the Clinical Negligence List must furnish a Certificate of Compliance confirming, among other things, an undertaking to offer mediation within three weeks of the trial date being fixed and to engage in mediation within six weeks of any acceptance.

PIAB era versus IRB era: institutional and procedural shift effected by the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022

Aspect	PIAB era (2004 to 13 December 2023)	IRB era (from 14 December 2023)
Statutory name	Personal Injuries Assessment Board	Injuries Resolution Board
Governing statute	PIAB Act 2003 (as amended)	PIAB Act 2003 as substantially amended by the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022
Mediation function	Not available	Statutory mediation function added; rolled out to Public and Employer Liability in 2024; extended to Motor Liability in December 2024
Retention period for case	Released to litigation typically within 9 months	Same baseline, plus extended retention available where assessment outstanding
Research and data publication	Limited research mandate	Expanded research function; IRB / Deloitte comparative awards report published 16 October 2025
Acceptance windows	28 days claimant; 21 days respondent	Unchanged (28 days claimant; 21 days respondent)
Order to Pay status	Same status as a court order	Unchanged
Section 51A deemed-lodgement effect	Operative	Operative; substantively unchanged

Notice of Trial and Case Progression

The case is set down for trial by way of a Notice of Trial under Order 36 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The Notice signals that pleadings are closed, discovery is exchanged, expert reports are in hand, and the action is ready to be assigned a trial date. In the Circuit Court, the County Registrar plays an active case-management role, holding progression hearings that narrow issues, set timetables, and encourage mediation.

The risk that a personal injuries action will stall between issue and trial is acute. The Supreme Court reformulated the principles for dismissal for want of prosecution in Kirwan v Connors & Ors, delivered on 30 May 2025, providing the most significant guidance on plaintiff delay in over three decades. The underlying rule is Order 122 Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which permits a defendant to apply to dismiss where neither party has taken a procedural step for two years.

The Three-Tier Offer Regime: Section 17, Order 22 Lodgement, Calderbank

Irish personal injury practice operates three distinct settlement-offer mechanisms, each with its own costs consequences. The first is the formal offer under Section 17 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004:

"(1) The plaintiff in a personal injuries action shall, after the prescribed date, serve a notice in writing of an offer of terms of settlement on the defendant. (2) The defendant in a personal injuries action shall, after the prescribed date, serve a notice in writing on the plaintiff— (a) of an offer of terms of settlement, or (b) stating that he or she is not prepared to pay any sum of money to the plaintiff in settlement of the action. … (4) The terms of a formal offer shall not be communicated to the judge in the trial of a personal injuries action until after he or she has delivered judgment in the action. (5) … the court shall, when considering the making of an order as to the payment of the costs in a personal injuries action have regard to— (a) the terms of a formal offer, and (b) the reasonableness of the conduct of the parties in making their formal offers."

Section 17(1), (2), (4) and (5), Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (irishstatutebook.ie). The "prescribed date" is fixed by SI 169/2005 as the date of service of the personal injuries summons on the defendant; the "prescribed period" ends 14 days after service of the notice of trial (Circuit Court and High Court) or 4 days after delivery of the defence (District Court).

The Section 17 offer carries a 14-day minimum acceptance window and is communicated openly between the parties but withheld from the trial judge until after judgment. The judge then takes the offer into account when making any costs order. The second mechanism is the formal lodgement under Order 22 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, where the defendant lodges money into court with the same costs-shifting effect: if the plaintiff fails to beat the lodgement, costs from the date of lodgement typically run against them. The third mechanism is the Calderbank letter, named for the English authority Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 and absorbed into Irish practice as a "without prejudice save as to costs" written offer.

The three mechanisms differ in operation:

Comparison of the three offer mechanisms in Irish personal injury actions

Mechanism	Statutory basis	Disclosed to judge	Costs effect if not beaten
Section 17 offer	CLCA 2004 s.17	After judgment only	Discretionary; the court "shall have regard to" the offer
Order 22 lodgement	RSC Order 22	After judgment only (in the High Court PI List the practice is fixed)	Strong shift: costs from date of lodgement typically against the plaintiff who fails to beat it
Calderbank letter	Common law (English origin, Irish-adopted)	After judgment only	Discretionary; the court takes the offer into account when exercising its costs discretion under s.169 LSRA 2015

The interplay with the IRB process matters here. Section 51A of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 treats an IRB assessment that the plaintiff rejected but the respondent accepted as the equivalent of a lodgement. If the plaintiff fails to beat that assessment at trial, the costs of the proceedings from the date of the rejection run against the plaintiff. The cost exposure is identical in mechanism to an Order 22 lodgement, though it arises from the statutory framework rather than party action.

In practice, three-tier offer cases turn on three timing decisions. First, when the defendant should make a Section 17 offer (the 14-day post-Notice-of-Trial window cannot be avoided, but earlier voluntary offers are routine). Second, whether to convert that offer into an Order 22 lodgement to maximise the costs-shift effect. Third, whether to use a Calderbank letter in parallel to capture pre-litigation offers within the costs analysis. Practitioners typically encounter the cleanest costs result where all three mechanisms align around a single offer figure.

Trial, Quantum, and the Personal Injuries Guidelines

The trial of a personal injury action is heard by a judge alone, juries were abolished in personal injuries cases by the Courts Act 1988. The plaintiff bears the legal and evidential burden on every contested element: the existence of a duty of care, the breach of that duty, causation, and the quantum of loss. The civil standard, balance of probabilities, applies throughout.

Quantum is now framed by the Personal Injuries Guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council on 6 March 2021 and brought into effect on 24 April 2021. The Guidelines are issued under Section 7 of the Judicial Council Act 2019 as ratified and brought into force by the Family Leave and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2021. The Supreme Court's decision in Delaney v PIAB resolved the constitutional challenge.

A draft revision to the Guidelines was approved by the Board of the Judicial Council on 21 October 2024 and considered by the full Judicial Council on 31 January 2025. The Board increased the original committee proposal of 15.6% (matching the cumulative HICP inflation since 2021) to 16.7%, with the result that if enacted the cap for the most serious injuries would rise from €550,000 to €642,000. The draft was submitted to the Minister for Justice on 4 February 2025 for transmission to the Oireachtas. As of the date of this article, the proposed amendments have not been enacted. The High Court in Cork, per O'Higgins J, has confirmed that the proposed 16.7% uplift does not apply to increase awards pending the enactment of the relevant Statutory Instrument.

The broader policy context includes the Action Plan on Insurance Reform 2025-2029, published in July 2025. According to the IRB/Deloitte comparative report of 16 October 2025, Irish awards for minor neck and back soft tissue injuries average 3.9 times the equivalent in England and Wales. These developments are likely to inform whether and how the draft Guidelines are progressed.

Section 26 Dismissals for False or Misleading Evidence

Quick answer: Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 requires the court to dismiss a personal injury action where the defendant proves that the plaintiff knowingly gave or adduced evidence that was false or misleading in a material respect. The two-element test is conjunctive: both material falsity and the plaintiff's subjective knowledge of the falsity must be established.

Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 mandates dismissal of a personal injuries action where the plaintiff has knowingly given false or misleading evidence on a material matter. The provision is unique to Irish personal injury litigation and is among the most heavily litigated provisions in the 2004 Act. Per Section 26:

"If, after the commencement of this section, a plaintiff in a personal injuries action gives or adduces, or dishonestly causes to be given or adduced, evidence that— (a) is false or misleading, in any material respect, and (b) he or she knows to be false or misleading, the court shall dismiss the plaintiff's action unless, for reasons that the court shall state in its decision, the dismissal of the action would result in injustice being done."

Section 26(1), Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (irishstatutebook.ie)

The statutory test is conjunctive: the evidence must be false or misleading in a material respect, and the plaintiff must know it to be so. The leading High Court authority on the application of these elements is Barton J's judgment in Murphy v Palmer:

The case law has clarified that Section 26 does not extend to innocent exaggeration, faulty recollection, or differences of opinion. In Foxe v Codd [2022] IEHC 351, Sanfey J refused a Section 26 application where the plaintiff's description of her injuries was inconsistent with the defendant's surveillance evidence in some respects, but on the totality of the evidence the discrepancies were attributable to a genuinely held belief about the pain experienced rather than deliberate fabrication. The subjective knowledge requirement protected the plaintiff from the statute's strict consequence.

Practitioners typically encounter Section 26 applications in two configurations: a surveillance-evidence application brought after the close of the plaintiff's case, where the defendant has tracked the plaintiff post-pleading; and a documents application built on inconsistencies between the verifying affidavit, the medical reports, and discovered records. The leading case on this point is often misunderstood as requiring proof of fraud; the actual ratio in Murphy v Palmer is narrower and turns on the plaintiff's subjective knowledge at the time the evidence was adduced.

A related strand of authority concerns the burden's application to specific categories of evidence, including Carmello v Casey [2007] IEHC 362 (Peart J) and Looby v Fatalski [2014] IEHC 564 (Barr J), both of which emphasise that the trial judge must be satisfied as a matter of high probability and that the test for knowledge is subjective. The defendant cannot make out the dismissal application merely by demonstrating that the plaintiff's evidence is contradicted by other evidence; the contradiction must rise to the level of deliberate deception.

Common Procedural Mistakes (and the Case Law That Reveals Them)

Five procedural failures account for most of the reported personal injury actions that fail on procedure rather than merits. Each is illustrated by a leading case already cited in this reference, and each is avoidable with disciplined case management.

Common procedural mistakes in Irish personal injury actions

Mistake	Statutory or Rule Source	Illustrative Case	Consequence
Allowing the summons to lapse beyond 12 months without service	Order 8 RSC	Murphy v HSE [2021] IECA 3	Application to renew refused absent "special circumstances"; claim extinguished if limitation has run
Filing the verifying affidavit late or by a deponent without personal knowledge	CLCA 2004 s.14	Application of s.14(4A) — court "shall" consider cost penalty	Mandatory cost-sanction consideration; risk of partial costs award
Missing the Section 8 one-month letter deadline without pleading reasonable cause	CLCA 2004 s.8 (as substituted, 28 January 2019); SI 216/2019	Mandatory adverse-cost inferences across all defended cases since 2019	Court "shall" draw adverse inferences and may reduce or refuse costs
Long inactivity between summons and trial	Primor principles, reformulated	Kirwan v Connors [2025] IESC 21 (30 May 2025)	Strike-out for want of prosecution at 2/4/5-year benchmarks, without need to prove specific prejudice
Pleading inflated or seriously flawed special damages	CLCA 2004 s.13; LSRA 2015 s.169	Higgins v Coleman & MIBI [2026] IEHC	Adverse costs order despite success on liability

A sixth, less litigated but increasingly relevant pitfall is failure to comply with HC131 in clinical negligence: a party that cannot produce the Certificate of Compliance (pleadings closed, discovery exchanged, expert reports exchanged or offered, witness schedules served, and mediation undertaking given) loses the trial date.

Costs (Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 s.169 and Order 99 RSC)

Costs in personal injury actions are governed by Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The general principle is that the successful party recovers costs from the unsuccessful party, but the court retains broad discretion. Section 169(1) directs the court to have regard to the conduct of the parties before and during the proceedings, the manner in which they pursued or defended the case, whether it was reasonable to raise or pursue any particular issue, the extent of any settlement offers, and any other matter the court considers relevant.

The practical impact of the three-tier offer regime described above is mediated through this discretion. Where a plaintiff rejects a Section 17 offer or fails to beat an Order 22 lodgement, the court will typically order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs from the date of the offer or lodgement. The position is harsher still under Section 51A of the PIAB Act 2003, where the costs penalty for failing to beat a rejected IRB assessment runs from the date of the rejection of the assessment rather than the date of a court-stage offer.

Section 14(4A) of the 2004 Act, inserted by the 2019 amendment, imposes a mandatory consideration of cost penalties where a party defaults on the verifying affidavit timeline. The court "shall" draw such inferences as appear proper and "shall", where the interests of justice so require, make no order as to costs or deduct an appropriate amount.

Costs Adjudication under LSRA 2015 Part 10

Where the parties cannot agree the quantum of costs, the matter is referred to the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators for adjudication. The OLCA replaced the former Taxing Master regime under Part 10 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (commenced 7 October 2019 by SI 502/2019).

The procedure proceeds in three stages. First, the receiving party prepares a bill of costs setting out the work done and the costs claimed under each heading. Second, the paying party files objections, which the receiving party answers in writing. Third, an oral hearing is held before a Legal Costs Adjudicator, who issues a Determination setting out the costs allowed.

In 2024, the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators received 912 new cases and finalised 1,019 cases. The Courts Service Annual Report 2024 records that the total claim value lodged for adjudication was €145.3m; costs determined by the Adjudicators amounted to €35.25m; and the total deduction from claimed costs was €14.77m. The average waiting time from application to initial hearing held steady at seven weeks, the level maintained since 2021.

Either party may appeal the Determination to the High Court within 21 days under Section 161 of the LSRA 2015. The High Court can confirm, vary, or remit the Determination but does not rehear the underlying assessment from first principles.

Appeals: Circuit Court to High Court; High Court to Court of Appeal; Leave to Supreme Court

The appellate route in personal injury actions tracks the venue at first instance. A Circuit Court decision is appealed to the High Court by way of a full de novo rehearing, governed by the Courts of Justice Act 1936 and Order 61 of the Circuit Court Rules. The appeal is not confined to errors of law: the High Court rehears the evidence and substitutes its own decision on both liability and quantum.

A High Court decision is appealed to the Court of Appeal, which was established by the Court of Appeal Act 2014. The appeal is governed by Order 58 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and is conducted on the papers and on oral submissions, not by way of rehearing. The Court of Appeal sits in panels of three judges. Grounds of appeal must be pleaded with specificity, and the Court of Appeal will only disturb a trial judge's findings of fact where there was no evidence to support them or where the judge's reasoning is shown to be in error.

From the Court of Appeal, a further appeal to the Supreme Court requires leave under Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will grant leave only where the case raises a matter of general public importance or where the interests of justice require an appeal. The procedure is governed by Order 86A RSC and Practice Direction SC 19. A leapfrog appeal direct from the High Court to the Supreme Court is permitted under Article 34.5.4° but is exceptionally rare.

Enforcement and Periodic Payments Orders

Once judgment is entered, enforcement is governed by Order 42 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the Enforcement of Court Orders Acts 1926 to 2009. A judgment creditor may pursue various enforcement routes: execution against goods (fieri facias), instalment orders before the District Court, judgment mortgage registration, or garnishee orders against debts owing to the judgment debtor.

For catastrophic injury awards, the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act 2017 introduced a regime for Periodic Payments Orders. Section 2 of the Act inserted Part IVB (sections 51A to 51N) into the Civil Liability Act 1961, empowering the court to award an annual sum, index-linked, to cover future care, future medical treatment, and future loss of earnings, in place of a lump sum. The PPO regime is available only in catastrophic injury cases and is subject to the consent of the parties or the court's discretion exercised in accordance with the statutory criteria. Where a PPO is made, the underlying obligation is generally underwritten by the State or by an authorised insurer.

Clinical Negligence: The Parallel Track (HC131 and HC132)

Clinical negligence litigation runs on a parallel procedural track to general personal injury. First, clinical negligence is excluded from the Injuries Resolution Board's statutory jurisdiction by Section 3(d) of the PIAB Act 2003. The action commences directly in the High Court without an authorisation. Second, the High Court has now established a dedicated procedural environment for these claims.

Practice Direction HC132, issued by the President of the High Court and effective from 28 April 2025, establishes a dedicated Clinical Negligence List within the Dublin Personal Injuries List. The List is presided over by a Judge in Charge experienced in clinical negligence, who assigns cases to designated judges drawn from the Personal Injuries List. The List covers all stages of clinical negligence proceedings (excluding standard Common Law motions), including case management hearings, interlocutory applications, applications for trial dates, hearings, and cost applications.

Practice Direction HC131, also effective 28 April 2025, sets out the conditions a party must satisfy before applying for a trial date in a clinical negligence action. The applicant must provide a Certificate of Compliance, signed by the solicitor on the record, confirming that pleadings are fully closed, discovery is complete, expert reports have been exchanged or offered with a reasonable opportunity to respond, witness schedules have been provided, and the applicant has given an undertaking to offer mediation to the opposing party within three weeks of the trial date being fixed and to engage within six weeks of acceptance. The court retains discretion to dispense with these conditions in cases of manifest urgency.

Pending Reform: The Civil Reform Bill 2025

The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025 was published on 6 January 2026 and previews the most substantial procedural modernisation since the 2004 Act. The reforms draw on the recommendations of the Kelly Review of the Administration of Civil Justice (October 2020) and the Action Plan on Insurance Reform 2025-2029. The Bill is pre-enactment and the current procedural rules remain authoritative until the Bill is passed and commenced.

Current law versus the Civil Reform Bill 2025 (General Scheme)

Topic	Current law	Civil Reform Bill 2025 (proposed)
Discovery	Order 31 RSC voluntary procedure plus court motion	Replaced by a focused "production of documents" regime with stricter relevance and proportionality tests
Appeals to the Court of Appeal	Order 58 RSC; appeals on the papers plus oral submissions	Streamlined case management; possible jurisdictional restructure aligned with the Personal Injury List
Personal Injuries Guidelines amendment	Judicial Council Act 2019, s.7, as amended; ratified by Oireachtas resolution	Revised review cycle; mandatory consultation with the IRB; clearer Oireachtas oversight
Interrogatories	Order 31 RSC as amended by SI 363/2024 (20 without leave)	Expected to be retained and integrated into the production-of-documents regime
Civil litigation costs	LSRA 2015 s.169; Order 99 RSC	New cost-rate guidelines with particular focus on personal injury

How a Personal Injury Action Proceeds: Step by Step

The procedural sequence below traces a typical defended personal injury action from cause of action through to judgment. Times shown are typical ranges in a contested matter; admitted-liability cases compress these substantially and complex catastrophic cases extend them.

1. Cause of action accrues. The limitation clock under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 begins. Limitation is two years less one day from cause of action or from date of knowledge, whichever is later.
2. Section 8 letter served (within one month). The plaintiff serves the pre-action letter required by Section 8 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (as substituted, commenced 28 January 2019).
3. IRB application lodged. Application is made online to the Injuries Resolution Board (formerly PIAB) under the PIAB Act 2003. Clinical negligence is excluded.
4. IRB outcome issued (typically 9 months). Either an assessment that may be accepted or rejected, or an authorisation to issue court proceedings where the respondent does not consent to assessment.
5. Personal injuries summons issued. The plaintiff issues a Personal Injuries Summons in Form 1 (High Court, Appendix CC RSC) or Form 2P (Circuit Court). Section 10 contents requirements apply.
6. Summons served (within 12 months). Service must be effected within 12 months of issue. Order 8 RSC governs renewal; "special circumstances" must be shown for any extension.
7. Defence and verifying affidavit served (typically 28 days plus 21 days). The defendant enters an appearance and delivers a Defence under Order 1A RSC. The verifying affidavit under Section 14 must be sworn within 21 days of the relevant pleading.
8. Voluntary discovery exchanged. The parties exchange voluntary discovery letters specifying categories of documents sought. If voluntary discovery fails, a court motion is brought under Order 31 RSC.
9. Interrogatories served (optional). Up to 20 interrogatories may be served without leave of the court under SI 363/2024 (effective 31 July 2024). The responding party has 21 days to file the affidavit answer.
10. Expert reports exchanged. Under SI 391/1998 inserted as Order 39 rr. 45-51 RSC. The plaintiff's schedule is served first; the defendant's response is due within seven days; reports are then exchanged simultaneously.
11. Mediation offered or directed. The Mediation Act 2017 imposes solicitor advice obligations; Section 15 of the 2004 Act permits the court to direct a mediation conference. Clinical negligence HC131 requires a mediation undertaking with any trial-date application.
12. Notice of Trial served. Order 36 RSC. Triggers the 14-day Section 17 formal offer window.
13. Section 17 formal offer + Order 22 lodgement + Calderbank letters considered. The three-tier offer regime engages. Each mechanism carries distinct costs consequences if not beaten at trial.
14. Trial conducted before a judge alone. Personal injury juries were abolished by the Courts Act 1988. Liability and quantum are decided on the balance of probabilities. Quantum is assessed against the Personal Injuries Guidelines (binding per Delaney v PIAB [2024] IESC 10).
15. Judgment delivered. The court determines liability, contributory negligence (if any), and damages under the Guidelines brackets.
16. Costs argued and determined. Costs are assessed under Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 99 RSC. Formal offers, lodgements, and Calderbank letters are disclosed to the court at this stage.
17. Appeal lodged (if pursued, within 28 days). Circuit Court appeals go to the High Court on circuit (full de novo); High Court appeals go to the Court of Appeal (Order 58 RSC); a further appeal to the Supreme Court requires leave under Article 34.5.3°.
18. Enforcement (if defendant non-compliant). Most personal injury awards are paid by insurer. Where enforcement is required, Order 42 RSC and the Enforcement of Court Orders Acts apply. Periodic Payments Orders under Part IVB of the Civil Liability Act 1961 apply in catastrophic injury cases.

The Court Process in Numbers: 2024 Data

Quick answer: According to the Courts Service Annual Report 2024, 12,989 new personal injury actions were initiated across all Irish courts in 2024, down 41% from the 2019 pre-Guidelines baseline of 21,981. High Court personal injury awards fell from €256m in 2023 to €135m in 2024.

The annual reports of the Courts Service and the Injuries Resolution Board for 2024 confirm the structural shift that has been underway since the 2021 Guidelines. Both volumes and award levels are substantially below pre-Guidelines benchmarks, and the procedural infrastructure has expanded to absorb the residual caseload.

Selected procedural statistics for personal injury actions, Ireland, 2024 (Courts Service Annual Report 2024; Injuries Resolution Board Annual Report 2024)

Metric	2024	Comparator	Source
New personal injury actions across all courts	12,989	13,434 (2023); 21,981 (2019)	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
Decrease in PI actions vs 2019 pre-Guidelines baseline	−41%	—	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
High Court PI awards (gross)	€135m	€256m (2023)	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
Circuit Court PI awards (gross)	under €13m	€16.7m (2023)	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
District Court PI awards (gross)	€1.5m	€2.2m (2023)	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
Overall PI award value, year-on-year	−45%	—	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
High Court new cases (all categories)	21,371	+33% over two years	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
New judges appointed 2024	20 (+25% in judicial capacity)	—	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
IRB personal injury applications received	20,837	20-year anniversary year	IRB Annual Report 2024
OLCA new cases (legal costs adjudication)	912	1,019 finalised	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
OLCA average waiting time (application to initial hearing)	7 weeks	Stable since 2021	Courts Service Annual Report 2024
OLCA total claim value lodged	€145.3m	Costs determined: €35.25m; deductions: €14.77m	Courts Service Annual Report 2024

Three observations follow from the 2024 figures. First, the 47% year-on-year fall in High Court personal injury awards is the largest single-year reduction since the Guidelines came into effect, and is consistent with the Supreme Court's clarification in Delaney v PIAB [2024] IESC 10 that trial judges must apply the brackets. Second, the modest fall in the number of new PI actions (12,989 in 2024 versus 13,434 in 2023) suggests the volume is stabilising rather than continuing to compress. Third, the IRB now receives substantially more applications than the courts dispose of finally, confirming the IRB's role as the principal claims-handling forum even as authorisations to litigate remain steady.

The launch of IRB mediation for Public and Motor Liability claims in 2024 marked the inaugural year of an expanded service initially offered only for employer liability matters. Within the IRB framework, the claimant has 28 days to accept or reject an assessment, the respondent has 21 days, and a fully accepted assessment is issued as an Order to Pay with effect equivalent to a court order.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue without going through the Injuries Resolution Board first?

No, in most personal injury cases. The IRB is a statutory gateway. You must apply to the IRB and obtain either an authorisation (where consent is refused or the assessment is rejected by either side) or an Order to Pay before issuing court proceedings.

The exceptions are narrow. Clinical negligence is excluded by Section 3(d) of the PIAB Act 2003. Claims involving an assault or trespass to the person, certain product liability claims, and a small set of other categories also fall outside the IRB's jurisdiction. The High Court in Dillon v Irish Life [2024] held that even claims primarily framed as distress, anxiety, and upset still require IRB authorisation where they constitute a civil action for damages for personal injury.

Practitioner note: A claim issued without IRB authorisation in a non-exempt category will normally be struck out on application by the defendant. Verify the category before issuing.

Read more: See our guide on what happens after an IRB authorisation.

How long does the personal injury court process take?

From issuance of the personal injuries summons to trial, the typical duration is 18 to 36 months in the Circuit Court and 24 to 48 months in the High Court Personal Injuries List, though catastrophic and clinical negligence cases routinely take longer.

Several factors compress or extend the timeline. Liability admissions shorten matters substantially. Multi-defendant cases, contested causation, and discovery disputes extend them. The Kirwan v Connors benchmarks now exert downward pressure on prolonged inactivity: an unjustified inactive period of 2 to 5 years risks a defendant's dismissal application succeeding without proof of specific prejudice.

Practitioner note: Active case management has improved since the introduction of County Registrar progression hearings and the HC131/HC132 reforms in clinical negligence. Diary the matter against the Kirwan benchmarks at the outset.

Read more: See our reference on time limits for personal injury claims in Ireland.

What is the difference between a Section 17 offer, an Order 22 lodgement, and a Calderbank letter?

All three are settlement-offer mechanisms with costs consequences for the receiving party who fails to better the offer at trial. The differences lie in formality, statutory basis, and the strength of the costs effect.

A Section 17 offer is statutory, made openly between the parties, withheld from the trial judge until after judgment, and considered by the court when exercising its costs discretion. An Order 22 lodgement involves money actually lodged into court, generally produces the strongest costs shift, and is favoured where the defendant has confidence in the valuation. A Calderbank letter is a common-law mechanism, marked "without prejudice save as to costs", flexible in its terms (it may cover non-monetary commitments), and gives the court discretion under Section 169 LSRA 2015 to take account of the offer.

Practitioner note: In Collins v Parm (2024), the Court of Appeal reduced the plaintiff's damages where the plaintiff had failed to beat a Calderbank offer, though it declined to order costs against the plaintiff. The case illustrates the discretionary nature of the Calderbank effect compared with the more mechanical operation of Order 22.

Read more: The s.51A costs risk after an IRB authorisation is covered in our authorisation guide.

What happens if my evidence is inconsistent at trial, can my whole case be dismissed?

Not for ordinary inconsistency or innocent error. Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 mandates dismissal only where evidence is false or misleading in a material respect and the plaintiff knew it to be so. Both elements must be established by the defendant to the civil standard, but with the heightened practical threshold articulated in Murphy v Palmer.

The case law has consistently protected genuine recollection failure, evolving symptoms, and good-faith differences of medical opinion. In Foxe v Codd [2022] IEHC 351, Sanfey J refused dismissal where surveillance evidence contradicted the plaintiff's description of her limitations, accepting that the contradiction was explicable by genuinely held belief rather than fabrication.

Practitioner note: Section 26 applications are typically advanced where surveillance, social media, or documentary evidence directly contradicts a specific, verifiable assertion. They are weakest where the contradiction is at the level of general impression rather than discrete fact.

Read more: The plaintiff's verification obligations are covered in the discussion of Section 14 above.

Are the 2024 Personal Injuries Guidelines amendments in force?

No. As of May 2026, the draft 16.7% uplift approved by the Board of the Judicial Council on 21 October 2024 and considered by the full Judicial Council on 31 January 2025 has been submitted to the Minister for Justice but has not been enacted through the necessary Statutory Instrument. The 2021 Guidelines remain authoritative.

The High Court (per O'Higgins J in a Cork case) has confirmed that the proposed uplift does not apply to increase awards pending enactment. Trial judges continue to assess general damages by reference to the brackets contained in the 2021 Guidelines, with the power to depart for reasons stated.

Practitioner note: The IRB/Deloitte comparative report of 16 October 2025 (concluding Irish awards average 3.9 times the equivalent in England and Wales) may inform the Minister's approach to the proposed uplift. Track the progress before assuming a quantum uplift in any pending case.

Read more: The constitutional position of the Guidelines is anchored by Delaney v PIAB [2024] IESC 10.

Can I appeal a personal injury judgment if I lose?

Yes, in most cases, but the route depends on the venue at first instance. A Circuit Court decision is appealed to the High Court by way of full de novo rehearing. A High Court decision is appealed to the Court of Appeal on stated grounds, not by rehearing. A further appeal to the Supreme Court requires leave under Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution.

The Court of Appeal will not lightly disturb a trial judge's findings of fact. It is more receptive to errors of law, errors in the application of the Personal Injuries Guidelines, and errors in the exercise of the court's discretion on quantum or costs. Successful appeals frequently turn on identifiable misapplication of legal principle rather than re-arguing the facts.

Practitioner note: Appeal time limits are strict. The standard time limit to appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal is 28 days from perfection of the order, extendable only for substantial reason.

Read more: See Order 58 RSC on appeals to the Court of Appeal.

What is a personal injuries summons in Ireland?

A personal injuries summons is the formal originating document that begins a personal injury action in the Irish courts. Its contents are dictated by Section 10 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and by Order 1A of the Rules of the Superior Courts.

The summons must specify the plaintiff's name, address, occupation, and PPS number; the defendant's details; the injuries alleged; full particulars of every item of special damage; and full particulars of the wrong alleged. High Court actions use Form 1 of Appendix CC RSC. Circuit Court actions use Form 2P of the Circuit Court Rules. Where the plaintiff is a minor, the action is brought through a "next friend" with a supporting affidavit and a certified copy of the minor's birth certificate.

Practitioner note: A summons that fails to plead the special damages with the particularity required by Section 10 is vulnerable to a motion for particulars and, ultimately, strike-out for failure to comply.

Read more: See the discussion of The Personal Injuries Summons above.

What is a verifying affidavit and when must it be sworn?

A verifying affidavit is the sworn statement, required by Section 14 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, by which a party verifies on oath that every assertion of fact contained in a pleading is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. It must be sworn within 21 days of the relevant pleading being served.

The affidavit is sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths or a practising solicitor (other than the deponent's own legal representative). Since the 2019 amendments effected by Section 13 of the Central Bank (National Claims Information Database) Act 2018, the court "shall" draw appropriate inferences from a failure to file the affidavit within time and "shall", where the interests of justice so require, refuse or reduce the defaulting party's costs.

Practitioner note: The verifying affidavit is the evidential foundation on which a later Section 26 application can be built. Care in drafting and verification at the outset reduces the risk of the affidavit being weaponised at trial.

Read more: See The Defence and Verifying Affidavit above.

What is the Notice of Trial in a personal injury action?

The Notice of Trial is the Order 36 RSC document by which the plaintiff signals that pleadings are closed, discovery has been exchanged, and the action is ready for trial. Service of the Notice of Trial is the trigger for the 14-day Section 17 formal offer window.

After service of the Notice of Trial, both parties have 14 days within which to serve a Section 17 formal offer of settlement (or a statement that no offer is being made). The offer is withheld from the trial judge until after judgment and is considered when the court exercises its costs discretion. Failure to make any offer at all, where one was reasonably warranted, may be taken into account in the costs analysis.

Practitioner note: The Notice of Trial should not be served until the case is genuinely ready. Premature service triggers the formal offer window before the parties have sufficient evidential clarity to value the claim accurately.

Read more: See Notice of Trial and Case Progression above.

What documents must be served before a personal injury trial date can be fixed?

Before a trial date is assigned in a defended personal injury action, the parties must have closed pleadings, completed mutual discovery, exchanged expert reports and witness schedules, and served any required formal offers. In clinical negligence, Practice Direction HC131 (effective 28 April 2025) requires a Certificate of Compliance confirming each step.

For general personal injury actions, the requirements derive from a combination of Order 1A RSC (pleadings), Order 31 RSC (discovery as amended by SI 93/2009 and SI 363/2024), Order 39 RSC and SI 391/1998 (expert reports), and Order 36 RSC (Notice of Trial). In clinical negligence, HC131 adds the Certificate of Compliance and the mandatory undertaking to offer mediation within three weeks of the trial date being fixed.

Practitioner note: The HC131 framework has effectively imported the disciplines of front-loaded preparation into a procedural Practice Direction. Practitioners outside the Clinical Negligence List will find that the same disciplines are increasingly expected by the Personal Injuries List Judge in Charge.

Read more: See Clinical Negligence: The Parallel Track above for HC131 detail.

References

1. Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, Act No. 31 of 2004. Office of the Attorney General.
2. Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (Revised). Law Reform Commission consolidation incorporating amendments.
3. Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, Act No. 46 of 2003 (irishstatutebook.ie).
4. Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022, Act No. 42 of 2022 (irishstatutebook.ie).
5. Central Bank (National Claims Information Database) Act 2018, Act No. 42 of 2018. Section 13 substituted CLCA 2004 ss. 8 and 14 (commenced 28 January 2019).
6. SI 363/2024, Rules of the Superior Courts (Interrogatories) 2024. Effective 31 July 2024.
7. SI 391/1998, Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 6) (Disclosure of Reports and Statements). irishstatutebook.ie.
8. Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, Act No. 65 of 2015 (irishstatutebook.ie). Costs framework at s. 169.
9. Mediation Act 2017, Act No. 27 of 2017 (irishstatutebook.ie).
10. Civil Liability (Amendment) Act 2017, Act No. 29 of 2017 (irishstatutebook.ie). Periodic Payments Orders.
11. Judicial Council Act 2019, Act No. 33 of 2019 (irishstatutebook.ie).
12. Civil Liability Act 1961, Act No. 41 of 1961 (irishstatutebook.ie).
13. Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 (irishstatutebook.ie).
14. Order 1A of the Rules of the Superior Courts, Procedure by Personal Injuries Summons. Courts Service of Ireland.
15. Order 5A, Circuit Court Rules (SI 526/2005). courts.ie.
16. Order 31 RSC, Interrogatories, Discovery and Inspection (courts.ie).
17. Order 58 RSC, Appeals to the Court of Appeal (courts.ie).
18. Practice Direction HC132, Clinical Negligence List. President of the High Court, effective 28 April 2025.
19. Practice Direction HC131, Clinical Negligence Actions: Applications for Trial Dates. Effective 28 April 2025.
20. Personal Injuries Guidelines. Judicial Council of Ireland, adopted 6 March 2021, effective 24 April 2021.
21. Draft Amendments to the Personal Injuries Guidelines. Approved by Board 21 October 2024; full Council 31 January 2025; submitted to Minister for Justice 4 February 2025; not yet enacted by Statutory Instrument as at May 2026 (judicialcouncil.ie).
22. BAILII Ireland. Irish Legal Information Institute judgment repository.
23. Injuries Resolution Board. Statutory gateway body (formerly PIAB until 14 December 2023).
24. Action Plan on Insurance Reform 2025–2029. Department of Finance, July 2025 (gov.ie).
25. Delaney v Personal Injuries Assessment Board, Judicial Council, Ireland and Attorney General [2024] IESC 10. Supreme Court of Ireland (9 April 2024). Guidelines binding.
26. Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21. Supreme Court of Ireland (30 May 2025). Reformulation of Primor want-of-prosecution principles.
27. Murphy v Palmer [2021] IEHC 154. High Court (Barton J, 4 March 2021). Section 26 burden of proof.
28. Cahill v Glenpatrick Spring Water Co Ltd [2018] IEHC 420. High Court. Leading authority on the Section 26 principles applicable to dismissal applications.
29. Carmello v Casey [2007] IEHC 362, reported [2008] 3 IR 524. High Court (Peart J, 26 October 2007). First successful Section 26 application.
30. Looby v Fatalski & Anor [2014] IEHC 564. High Court (Barr J). Subjective knowledge requirement under Section 26.
31. Foxe v Codd [2022] IEHC 351. High Court (Sanfey J, 8 June 2022). Section 26 refused on subjective knowledge.
32. Platt v OBH Luxury Accommodation Ltd [2017] IECA 221. Court of Appeal (Irvine J, 28 July 2017). Section 26 dismissal upheld on plaintiff exaggeration.
33. Ryan v Haq & Ors [2024] IEHC 215. High Court (Bradley J, 12 April 2024). Scope of interrogatories under Order 31 RSC; principle survives under SI 363/2024.
34. Higgins v Coleman & Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland [2026] IEHC. High Court (January 2026). Inflated loss-of-earnings claim costs warning.
35. Murphy v HSE [2021] IECA 3. Court of Appeal. Order 8 RSC renewal of summons, special circumstances test.
36. Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93. English Court of Appeal (cited for the costs convention adopted in Irish practice).
37. IRB / Deloitte Comparative Awards Report (16 October 2025). Comparative analysis of Irish vs England and Wales soft tissue awards.
38. General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025. Department of Justice (6 January 2026). Pre-enactment proposal text.
39. Review of the Administration of Civil Justice in Ireland (the Kelly Report). October 2020.

Change Log: What Updated and When

This reference is reviewed quarterly. Material updates are logged below.

19 May 2026

Initial publication. Includes Civil Reform Bill 2025 General Scheme (6 January 2026); Higgins v Coleman & MIBI [2026] IEHC (January 2026); Kirwan v Connors reformulation of Primor (30 May 2025); HC131 and HC132 Practice Directions (28 April 2025); SI 363/2024 interrogatories reform (31 July 2024); IRB/Deloitte comparative report (16 October 2025); draft Personal Injuries Guidelines 16.7% uplift status (Board approved 21 October 2024, not yet enacted by SI as at publication date).

Next scheduled review: 19 August 2026 or earlier if (a) the Civil Reform Bill 2025 is enacted, (b) the draft Personal Injuries Guidelines uplift is enacted by Statutory Instrument, (c) the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal delivers a material procedural judgment, or (d) a further Practice Direction is issued by the President of the High Court.

Glossary of Procedural Terms

Affidavit of Verification

The sworn statement required by Section 14 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, verifying every assertion of fact in a pleading. Must be sworn within 21 days of the relevant pleading.

Authorisation

The document issued by the Injuries Resolution Board permitting a claimant to issue court proceedings. Required in all non-exempt personal injury matters before a personal injuries summons can be served.

Calderbank Letter

A "without prejudice save as to costs" written settlement offer, drawn from English common law and adopted into Irish practice. Disclosed to the trial judge only after judgment, for the purpose of costs assessment.

Certificate of Compliance

The document required by Practice Direction HC131 in clinical negligence actions, confirming pleadings closure, discovery completion, expert report exchange, witness schedules, and a mediation undertaking before a trial date can be assigned.

Commissioner for Oaths

A person authorised under the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889 to administer oaths and take affidavits. Solicitors are Commissioners for Oaths for the purposes of their own practice but cannot witness their own client's affidavit.

Discovery

The procedure under Order 31 of the Rules of the Superior Courts by which parties exchange relevant documents in their possession, power, or procurement. Initiated by voluntary letter; enforced by court motion.

Form 1 / Form 2P

The prescribed personal injuries summons forms. Form 1 of Appendix CC RSC is used in the High Court; Form 2P of the Circuit Court Rules is used in the Circuit Court.

Harrington Undertaking

The written assurance by which a defendant's legal team undertakes not to share a plaintiff's exchanged expert report with the defendant's own retained expert. Preserves the integrity of independent expert opinion.

Interrogatories

Written questions on facts in issue served by one party on another, requiring an affidavit answer. Since SI 363/2024 (effective 31 July 2024), up to 20 interrogatories may be served without leave of the court.

Lodgement

The formal payment of money into court by a defendant in satisfaction of a claim, under Order 22 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Withheld from the trial judge until after judgment; carries a strong costs-shift effect.

Next Friend

An adult who brings a personal injury action on behalf of a minor under 18. The next friend is named in the title of the action and gives an affidavit of next friend supporting the summons.

Notice of Trial

The Order 36 RSC document by which the plaintiff signals that pleadings are closed and the action is ready for trial. Triggers the 14-day Section 17 formal offer window.

Order to Pay

The IRB document issued where an IRB assessment has been accepted by both claimant and respondent. Has the same status as a court order for the purpose of enforcement.

Periodic Payments Order (PPO)

An annual, index-linked payment ordered under Part IVB of the Civil Liability Act 1961 (inserted by the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act 2017). Available in catastrophic injury cases for future care, future medical treatment, and future loss of earnings.

Primor Test

The framework for dismissal for want of prosecution established by the Supreme Court in Primor plc v Stokes Kennedy Crowley and reformulated in Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21 on 30 May 2025.

Section 8 Letter

The pre-action letter required by Section 8 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (as substituted, commenced 28 January 2019). Must be served within one month of cause of action; failure to serve attracts mandatory cost penalties.

Section 17 Offer

The statutory formal offer regime under Section 17 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. Both parties may serve a formal offer; the trial judge considers the offer when making costs orders.

Section 26 Dismissal

The mandatory dismissal under Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 where a plaintiff has knowingly given false or misleading evidence on a material point.

Section 51A Costs

The deemed-lodgement effect under Section 51A of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. Where a plaintiff rejects an IRB assessment that the respondent had accepted, and fails to beat it at trial, the costs run against the plaintiff from the date of the rejection.

Special Damages

Quantifiable pecuniary losses (medical expenses, loss of earnings, future care costs). Distinguished from general damages, which compensate for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity under the Personal Injuries Guidelines.

Verifying Affidavit

See Affidavit of Verification above.