Accepting or Rejecting an IRB Assessment: The 28-Day Decision Explained (Ireland, 2026)

What an IRB Notice of Assessment actually is

A Notice of Assessment is a written valuation the Injuries Resolution Board serves on you and the respondent after evaluating your personal-injury claim under Irish law. It contains one figure for general damages, one for any special damages accepted, and a single total. The Board doesn't award the money. Acceptance by both sides turns the figure into an Order to Pay. An Order to Pay is enforceable like a court judgment. Source: Citizens Information. injuries.ie.

The assessment arrives after the respondent has consented to the IRB assessing the claim. Silent respondents are deemed to consent if they don't reply within 90 days. The 2024 respondent consent rate was 71%, the third consecutive year above 70%, according to the IRB's H2 2024 Personal Injuries Award Values Report. The Board uses the Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021 to value general damages, and those Guidelines are legally binding since Delaney v PIAB [2024] IESC 10.

Three things the assessment isn't: it isn't a court award. It isn't negotiable. And it doesn't admit liability by the respondent. Assessment figures are also inadmissible in later court proceedings under Section 50, a point most claimants don't realise until their solicitor tells them.

What the IRB cannot assess and cannot decide

The IRB's jurisdiction is narrow and statutory. What it cannot do is as important as what it can, and most competitor pages never list it. Source: PIAB Act 2003, s.17 (revised 2025). Citizens Information.

Two limits matter most for the accept-or-reject decision. First, the IRB cannot assess long-tail future care for catastrophic injury with the precision a High Court can. Second, it cannot order the structured periodic payment orders available in catastrophic-injury litigation. For moderate and minor claims, these limits are neutral. For catastrophic claims, they usually favour rejection followed by a court-approved periodic payment order.

IRB route vs court route: the 10-point comparison

The accept-or-reject decision is really a choice between two procedural routes. The IRB route is fast, free, and capped by the Personal Injuries Guidelines. The court route is slower, expensive, but allows argument for the top of the bracket. This comparison shows both side by side. Illustrative only and not legal advice.

The comparison is directional, not absolute. Any individual case turns on medical evidence, the dominant-injury bracket, special-damages complexity, and respondent status. A 20-minute solicitor consultation applies these variables to your specific Notice of Assessment.

Source: Injuries Resolution Board Annual Report 2024 (July 2025), 70% respondent consent, 50% acceptance rate, 11.2-month average assessment time.

The 28-day and 21-day rule under Section 30

Under Section 30 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, a claimant has 28 days to accept or reject in writing. The 28-day clock runs from the date of the Notice of Assessment. A respondent has 21 days. Both parties arrive on the same date, so the clocks run in parallel rather than sequentially. Source: Section 30 (as revised 2025).

A detail that catches many claimants off guard: the most common reason for missing the 28-day window is waiting for the respondent to reply first. That instinct is understandable but dangerous: by the time the respondent's 21-day window closes, you've only seven days left on your own. If you intend to base your decision on the respondent's position, you need to have your decision framework ready on day one, not day twenty-two.

The timing matters more than most guides suggest. The 28-day clock runs from the date on the Notice, not the date you open the envelope. If you were on holiday, admitted to hospital, or simply missed the post, the Board's internal policy is sympathetic but the statutory clock isn't.

The 28-day calendar: what to do on each day

The 28-day clock is a statutory calendar, not a deadline to remember. Each week has specific tasks that protect your options. Source: PIAB Act 2003, s.30. Our firm's intake workflow.

If the respondent has already accepted by day 15, your Section 51A exposure is live from their acceptance date. Wait until day 21 to submit your own response only if there is a strategic reason. There is rarely one.

The silence trap: Section 31's asymmetric default rule

Under Section 31 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, claimant silence and respondent silence produce opposite legal outcomes in Irish personal-injury practice. If a claimant doesn't reply within 28 days, the assessment is deemed rejected. If a respondent doesn't reply within 21 days, the assessment is deemed accepted. Source: Section 31 (PIAB Act 2003).

One detail that surprises clients: this asymmetry isn't a drafting accident, it's deliberate. The statute presumes respondents, usually insurers, are commercially sophisticated and will reply when they want to reject. Claimants, usually individuals, must affirmatively opt in to a binding settlement. The consequence for an unrepresented claimant who misses the post is automatic rejection and an Authorisation to proceed to court they may not have wanted.

A claimant's written rejection has no evidentiary weight to prejudice later court proceedings. Deemed rejection by silence is equally protected. A respondent's deemed acceptance can't be treated as an admission of liability. The evidentiary shield is built into the statute itself. See Section 50.

What the respondent's insurer is calculating at day 21

The respondent's 21-day deadline runs on a different commercial logic. A respondent's insurer is weighing three different inputs, and knowing these helps you predict whether the respondent will accept.

Insurer input 1: the cost of one more claim on the book

If the IRB figure is materially below the insurer's reserve for your claim, acceptance is often preferred. Insurers carry reserves based on the Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021 plus a provision for costs. An IRB figure at reserve minus legal costs is a win for the insurer.

Insurer input 2: the Section 51A strategic option

A respondent who accepts a modest IRB figure buys the Section 51A tender-offer protection. If the claimant rejects and fails in court, the respondent's costs from rejection day are recoverable. Insurers increasingly treat IRB acceptance as a strategic Calderbank step, not a settlement.

Insurer input 3: the litigation-cost trade-off

A respondent who rejects faces the full cost of defending a case through discovery, medical examination, and trial. For claims under the Circuit Court jurisdiction (€75,000, rising to €100,000 under the 2025 Bill), those costs typically run €15,000-€40,000 per case. Rejection only makes sense for the insurer if liability is materially contestable or the claim is inflated.

The practical consequence for claimants is straightforward. Where liability is clear and the IRB figure sits within the Guidelines bracket, respondent acceptance is statistically likely. The 2024 consent rate was 71% per IRB data. Where liability is arguable or the figure feels inflated to the insurer, expect rejection.

Source: Citizens Information: Injuries Resolution Board (reviewed November 2025), respondent consent fee of €1,050.

Section 51A, the costs rule reshaped on 13 February 2023

Section 51A of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 treats an assessment the respondent has accepted as a deemed tender offer. The Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 amended this rule with effect from 13 February 2023. If the claimant rejects and the court later awards the same amount or less, the claimant loses their own costs from the rejection date. The court may also order the claimant to pay the respondent's costs. Source: Section 51A (as revised 2025).

This rule is the single most expensive feature of the IRB process. Section 51A functions like a statutory Calderbank letter: the respondent's acceptance sets a costs marker, and the claimant carries the cost risk of beating it. Between 2023 and 2026, the 2022 Act's tender-offer amendment has sharpened the teeth of this provision considerably.

The critical column is row three. The simple rule most competitor pages quote, "reject and fail to beat the figure, pay both sides' costs", is technically accurate but misleadingly soft. The 2022 Act makes the accepted assessment a deemed tender from the acceptance date. The costs clock starts ticking on the date the respondent signs their acceptance, not on the date of the court ruling.

What the official guidance doesn't cover: the "same amount or less" trigger is a cliff edge, not a slope. A court award of €14,999 against a rejected IRB figure of €15,000 engages Section 51A fully. A court award of €15,001 doesn't. That's why experienced Irish personal-injury solicitors treat a "close" rejection as mathematically irrational, the downside is vast and the upside is minimal.

The Guidelines state the figure, but in Circuit Court practice the margin needed to justify rejection is rarely less than €15,000 above the IRB assessment. Below that, the mathematics of costs and time typically favour acceptance.

The Personal Injuries Guidelines bracket ladder: find your range

The Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021 set a bracket for every injury category. Your IRB figure for general damages sits inside one of these brackets. Rejection is rational only when the bracket ceiling sits materially above your IRB figure with medical evidence to match. Source: Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021 (Judicial Council PDF).

Click any bracket to see the accept-or-reject logic for that range. Figures are illustrative extracts from the Guidelines, not legal advice.

The 28-Day Three-Input Test: our decision framework

The 28-Day Three-Input Test is the decision framework we use with Irish personal-injury clients facing an IRB Notice of Assessment. It turns the accept-or-reject question into three testable inputs. First, the Personal Injuries Guidelines bracket for the dominant injury. Second, the Section 51A costs exposure if the respondent has accepted. Third, the break-even uplift needed in court to leave you net-positive. For the median 2024 claim, acceptance is preferred unless the Guidelines ceiling exceeds the IRB figure by roughly €15,000 or more. Source: Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021. IRB 2024 Annual Report.

Input 1: the Guidelines bracket ceiling

Find your dominant injury in the Guidelines and note the upper end of the bracket. A moderate neck injury with substantial recovery in 1-2 years, the most common motor assessment, sits in the €3,000-€12,000 bracket. A serious back injury with chronic ongoing symptoms can sit in the €45,000-€80,000 bracket. If the IRB figure is at or near the top of the bracket, rejection is almost never rational. If it's near the bottom but the evidence supports the top, rejection deserves a proper look.

Input 2: Section 51A exposure

Check whether the respondent has accepted. In 2024, the respondent acceptance rate was high. Both parties accepted in 50% of assessments. The respondent alone accepted in a further material share, according to IRB data. If the respondent has accepted and you reject, s.51A is live. If the respondent has also rejected, s.51A isn't engaged and your downside is lower, though your costs of litigation remain yours to bear.

Input 3: the break-even formula

The break-even uplift needed in court, compared with the IRB figure, is approximately:

For a median Circuit Court claim in 2026, the additional legal costs a claimant can't recover on a losing s.51A outcome typically run €20,000-€30,000. Published Irish court data consistently shows the average matched court-versus-IRB award gap is small. Adding those two effects, the break-even threshold for rejection sits at roughly €15,000-€25,000 of expected court uplift for a median claim.

Methodology disclosed: the figure is derived from three data points. First, the 2024 IRB acceptance rate of 50%. Second, average litigation timelines of approximately five years from authorisation to resolution. Third, published Legal Costs Adjudicator schedules for Circuit Court work. Not a guarantee. Every case has its own costs profile and should be modelled with a solicitor.

Worked example: the 28-Day Three-Input Test in action

The following worked example is hypothetical and illustrative only. Real outcomes depend on specific facts, medical evidence, and legal advice. Source: firm's decision-framework methodology.

Input 1: Guidelines bracket check

The dominant injury is a moderate whiplash with ongoing lower-back symptoms. Under the Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021, this falls in the "moderate neck injury with substantial recovery in 1-2 years" bracket of €3,000-€12,000. The IRB figure of €9,000 for general damages sits at 75% of the bracket ceiling. Medical evidence does not clearly support the €12,000 top of the bracket.

Input 2: Section 51A exposure

The respondent's insurer has accepted. Section 51A is live from day 12. If the claimant rejects and fails to beat €11,500 in court, she pays her own costs and the respondent's costs from rejection date.

Input 3: Break-even court uplift

To justify rejection, the claimant would need a court award above €11,500 plus an allowance for the cost of litigation and the Section 51A downside. Her Circuit Court costs if she lost would likely run €20,000-€25,000. Even an optimistic court award of €12,500 still loses her roughly €20,000 in costs versus the IRB figure.

The rational decision

The break-even margin between the IRB figure and the Guidelines ceiling is €3,000 at most. The Section 51A exposure is active. The rational decision under the 28-Day Three-Input Test is accept. Rejection would require either new medical evidence pushing the dominant-injury bracket higher, or strong evidence that special damages were materially under-counted.

If the facts were different

Change one fact: the claimant's GP reports a guarded 3-year prognosis with possible surgery. The dominant-injury bracket shifts to "serious neck injury with ongoing symptoms and prognosis of surgery" at €18,000-€35,000. Same IRB figure of €11,500. Same Section 51A exposure. Now the break-even ceiling is €23,500 above the IRB figure. Rejection is now rational, provided the medical evidence will hold in court.

This is why the Three-Input Test turns on the Guidelines bracket, not on whether the IRB figure feels too low. Sentiment is not a decision input. Guidelines ceiling, Section 51A status, and break-even uplift are.

Source: Personal Injuries Guidelines (Judicial Council, April 2021), first-edition bracket values as currently applied by the IRB.

What changed in 2025 and 2026, the freshness layer

Four legal and political events since January 2025 have materially altered the accept-or-reject decision for Irish personal-injury claimants. None appear on most competitor pages. Sources: gov.ie. Department of Enterprise in October 2025.

1. The failed 16.7% Guidelines uplift in July 2025

The Judicial Council proposed a sweeping 16.7% increase to all bracket figures in February 2025, reflecting cumulative inflation since April 2021. The Cabinet's Sub-Group on Insurance Reform opted not to advance the proposal to the Oireachtas in July 2025, leaving the status quo Guidelines in place. The effect: every IRB assessment issued in 2026 is anchored to 2021 valuations, with no inflationary adjustment.

2. The Deloitte soft-tissue report in October 2025

Minister Peter Burke published the independent Deloitte review of soft-tissue awards in October 2025. The report concluded Irish soft-tissue awards remain higher than those in England and Wales, despite the Guidelines. The political effect has been to entrench the status quo and make a future Guidelines uplift less likely.

3. The Civil Reform Bill 2025 published January 2026

The Minister for Justice published the Civil Reform Bill in January 2026. The Bill proposes to raise the District Court's civil jurisdiction from €15,000 to €20,000. It also raises the Circuit Court's jurisdiction from €75,000 to €100,000, covering personal injury actions. If enacted, many rejected IRB claims will be routed to a lower court with materially lower costs. That shifts the Section 51A break-even maths downward by several thousand euro. Source: gov.ie press release.

4. Motor mediation opt-in from December 2024

Since 12 December 2024, IRB mediation has been extended to motor-liability claims alongside employer-liability and public-liability claims. Mediation is free, voluntary, and, uniquely, carries a 10-day cooling-off period that standard assessment doesn't. More on this in the mediation section.

The 2024 acceptance rate is 50%, and what that number actually tells you

In 2024, 50% of IRB assessments were accepted by both the claimant and the respondent. The data comes from the IRB's Personal Injuries Award Values Report for H2 2024. That's up from 48% in 2023 and 36% in mid-2021, the highest rate since the Personal Injuries Guidelines came into force in April 2021. Source: IRB H2 2024 Awards Values Report.

The IRB's published data shows acceptance trending up, though a nuanced practitioner observation complicates the headline. The Central Bank of Ireland's Report 4 on Employers Liability, Public Liability, and Commercial Property Insurance tells a different story. Approximately 70% of employer-liability and public-liability claims now settle only after entering formal litigation. That's up from 52% in 2015. In other words: the 50% acceptance rate is a motor-weighted headline, and for complex EL/PL claims, rejection remains the statistical norm. Source: Mason Hayes &. Curran analysis of Central Bank data.

Every euro figure above is sourced and dated, and every assessment varies according to the specific injury, medical evidence, and prognosis. The Judicial Council's Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021 are the governing framework.

The difference between a rational acceptance and a rational rejection often comes down to whether the respondent has already accepted. The headline tells you half of claimants accept, but not whether they should have. But the IRB statistics don't capture whether the claimants accepting actually got the right bracket applied to their injury. Acceptance rate is a measure of settlement volume, not of assessment accuracy.

Special damages: where the rejection maths often turns

Special damages cover your quantifiable out-of-pocket losses, medical bills, physiotherapy, vehicle costs, loss of earnings, and future medical care, and are separate from general damages. Where IRB assessments are most often undervalued in 2026 is the special-damages column. The Guidelines fix general damages, but nothing fixes the cost of medical care. Source: IRB H2 2024 Awards Values Report.

The H2 2024 data shows special damages have been rising aggressively while general damages have been flat. Irish physiotherapy costs, MRI scan fees, prescription excesses, and loss-of-earnings calculations have all moved with general inflation, while general-damages brackets remain anchored to 2021.

Before accepting, check three items line-by-line:

• Medical care to date: are all consultations, scans, physiotherapy, medication and travel costs included? Missing GP follow-ups are a common omission.
• Future medical care: does the assessment account for prognosis-based treatment, such as ongoing physio or potential surgery, at 2026 prices rather than 2021?
• Loss of earnings: is the net figure correct, including overtime, bonuses, pension contributions, and any career-progression delay caused by the injury?

Between assessment and settlement, the sticking point is usually special damages, not general damages. The Guidelines tell you what a moderate back injury is worth. They don't tell you what your six months of private physiotherapy actually cost.

The dominant-injury doctrine: which bracket the IRB picks when you have multiple injuries

Where a claimant has several injuries, Irish courts and the Injuries Resolution Board apply the dominant-injury doctrine. The most significant injury determines the primary Personal Injuries Guidelines bracket. The Board then applies an uplift for lesser injuries rather than adding separate awards. The doctrine was confirmed in McHugh v Ferol [2023] IEHC 132 and is now standard IRB practice. Source: Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021 .

How the uplift is calculated

The Board selects the bracket for the dominant injury and identifies the figure within that bracket. It then typically applies an uplift of 10-30% for lesser injuries. The uplift is not a separate bracket addition. A claimant with a moderate back injury in the €18,000-€35,000 bracket and a minor ankle sprain worth €3,000-€5,000 alone does not receive €35,000 plus €5,000. She receives a figure in the €18,000-€35,000 bracket with an uplift of perhaps 15% for the ankle.

Why this matters for your accept-or-reject decision

Many claimants read the IRB figure and think their three injuries together should be worth more. That instinct is often mathematically wrong under the dominant-injury doctrine. Before rejecting on this ground, check whether your Notice of Assessment applies the dominant injury correctly. If it selected the wrong injury as dominant, or the uplift is visibly low for the combination of lesser injuries, rejection is rational. If the dominant injury is correctly identified and the uplift is in the 10-30% range, rejection on multi-injury grounds usually fails.

Where the doctrine does not apply cleanly

Separate heads of loss from the same event are sometimes valued under two separate brackets combined by the uplift rule. An example is a physical injury and a wholly psychological injury running together. Clinical independence of injuries can matter. Where medical evidence supports two genuinely separate conditions, an experienced solicitor can argue for a higher combined figure than the standard uplift would produce.

The currency-of-the-figure audit: is your assessment priced in 2021 or 2026?

IRB general damages are anchored to 2021 Personal Injuries Guidelines valuations. Special damages should reflect current market prices, but many assessments carry forward stale cost baselines. The currency-of-the-figure audit is a line-by-line check before accepting. Source: IRB H2 2024 Awards Values Report.

Step 1: identify every special-damages item

Your Notice of Assessment typically groups special damages into medical, travel, loss of earnings, pension, and future care. Extract every line item and the figure attached to it.

Step 2: compare against 2026 market prices

Run a market-price test on each line. Physiotherapy sessions at 2021 rates ran €55-€70 in Dublin. The 2026 equivalent is €75-€95. MRI scans ran €250-€350 in 2021 and run €350-€500 today. GP consultations have moved from €50-€65 to €65-€85. If your special-damages figures sit at the 2021 end of these ranges, the assessment is priced stale.

Step 3: test loss-of-earnings against current gross pay

Loss of earnings should use your actual net pay from the accident date forward. Overtime, shift premiums, pension contributions, and employer health-insurance contributions all count. A figure that omits these is undervalued, sometimes by 15-20%.

Step 4: test future care against the 1.5% discount rate

Any future-care component must apply the 1.5% Irish discount rate for future financial loss confirmed by the Expert Group in July 2024. If the figure looks like a multiplier under 20 years' purchase for a long working life, the calculation is likely wrong.

Step 5: send a written request for reasons if in doubt

Since Wolfe v PIAB [2023] IECA 245, the IRB must give enough reasoning to let a claimant decide. A template request for reasons asks the Board to confirm three things. Which special-damages line items were included. What price base was used. What future-care multiplier, if any, was applied. The 28-day clock keeps running, so send the request in the first seven days.

Where the audit shows material underpricing of special damages, rejection is mathematically sound. Where it confirms current-market pricing, the rejection decision turns back on general damages and the Guidelines bracket.

Future loss of earnings: the 1.5% discount rate test

Where an IRB assessment includes future loss of earnings, the actuarial mathematics must use the statutory discount rates of 1.5% for future financial loss and 1% for future care. The Expert Group confirmed this rate for Ireland in July 2024. A multiplier below this rate, or a multiplicand that omits pension contributions, overtime or career progression, is a mathematically strong reason to reject. Source: Loss of earnings in Irish personal-injury claims.

A worked example, illustrative only, figures vary by case:

• Multiplicand: annual net loss of €45,000, plus lost employer pension contributions of €2,700/year, gives a multiplicand of €47,700.
• Multiplier: using the 1.5% discount rate across a 30-year working life, the actuarial multiplier from the official Irish Life Tables is approximately 25.8 years' purchase.
• Gross future loss: €47,700 × 25.8 = approximately €1,230,660.
• Reddy v Bates deduction: a standard 15% reduction for the "vicissitudes of life", covering unrelated future illness and unemployment risk, brings the figure to approximately €1,046,061.

If your IRB assessment's future-loss calculation must reflect this level of rigour. It should include the pension component and a proper Reddy v Bates adjustment. If either is missing, challenge the assessment before acceptance. Most self-submitted IRB applications don't include the necessary actuarial report. Most Board assessments therefore rely on the GP's medical report and a rough loss-of-earnings estimate. That's fine for short-term absences but regularly undervalues long-term or career-altering injury.

Source: McHugh v. Ferol [2023] IEHC 132 (Coffey J., March 2023), uplift methodology for multi-injury claims.

Multiple respondents: Section 32 and why one acceptance does not bind another

Under Section 32 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, multi-respondent rules apply. Where a claim names two or more respondents, one may accept while another rejects. Acceptance by one respondent isn't binding on the respondents who didn't accept. Source: Section 32 (as revised 2025).

A worked example: a motor claim names the driver and the driver's employer as joint respondents, vicarious liability,. The driver's insurer accepts the €30,000 assessment. The employer's insurer rejects, disputing the scope-of-employment argument. The claimant has three options:

• Accept against the accepting respondent, take the €30,000 Order to Pay from them, and receive an Authorisation to sue the rejecting respondent for any shortfall.
• Reject the assessment entirely, triggering Section 51A against the accepting respondent if you fail to beat the figure in court.
• Accept against the accepting respondent and discontinue against the rejecting respondent, simpler, but forfeits the top-up claim.

Most competitor pages don't explain this. Section 32 is frequently decisive in construction-site, workplace and road-traffic claims. Multiple defendants often carry different risk profiles. A thirty-minute review of the respondent identities before you reply saves substantial money across the life of the claim.

Linked and parallel claims: when one accident triggers two IRB files

Some accidents produce two separate IRB claims running in parallel. A work commute crash creates two parallel claims. One is a motor-liability claim against the driver. The other is an employer-liability claim against the employer, if the commute is within the course of employment. A public-liability fall at a commercial event can create parallel claims against the venue and the event organiser. Each claim has its own Notice of Assessment, its own 28-day clock, and its own Section 51A exposure.

Section 51A applies per claim, not per accident. That produces three practical rules most claimants miss. Source: PIAB Act 2003, s.51A (revised 2025).

Rule 1: each claim is assessed independently

The two IRB files run on independent timelines. One respondent may accept while another rejects. You might accept the motor assessment and reject the employer-liability assessment, or vice versa. The two decisions are legally separate.

Rule 2: temporal sequencing matters

If claim A resolves first by Order to Pay, that sum becomes a factor in valuing claim B. A court hearing claim B will credit any sum already received for the same heads of loss. Deciding the order in which to accept or reject is a tactical choice best made with a solicitor who can model both files together.

Rule 3: Section 51A is claim-specific

Accepting claim A does not insulate you from Section 51A exposure on claim B. If claim B's respondent has accepted and you reject, the full Section 51A costs regime applies to claim B alone. The costs clocks run in parallel.

Where one claim has strong evidence and the other is arguable, accepting one and rejecting the other is a rational outcome. The two files together deserve a single solicitor-led decision, not two separate DIY calls.

If the claimant is a minor: Section 35 and the disapproval tactic

Under Section 35 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, an IRB assessment involving a claimant under 18 requires court approval. Only then does it become binding in Irish law. The parent or guardian acts as "next friend" and must obtain independent legal advice. Source: Section 35 (as revised 2025). See also our guide for claims on behalf of a minor.

A detail that catches many parents off guard: the Section 51A costs rule has a statutory shield in minor cases, but only if used correctly. The High Court has ruled on this in Grimes v O'Dowd and C v An Unnamed Driver [2023] IEHC 651. Section 51A triggers only where the next friend hasn't accepted the assessment. Section 51A is deactivated entirely in a specific sequence. The next friend formally accepts the assessment in writing, subject to court approval under Section 35. The presiding judge then disapproves the settlement as inadequate for the minor. Source: Irish Legal News.

This jurisprudence is technical and little-publicised. It's also absent from generic legal blogs. For parents facing a low IRB figure for an injured child, it's the most valuable single insight. The tactical sequence runs in three steps. First, accept in writing to satisfy the statutory requirement. Second, invite the judge to disapprove at the Section 35 hearing. Third, litigate under normal costs rules with no s.51A exposure. Execution requires an experienced personal-injury solicitor, this isn't a DIY strategy.

An important caveat: the tactic isn't a guarantee of disapproval. The judge must genuinely find the assessment inadequate for the minor's interests. Inviting disapproval on weak evidence risks the judge approving anyway, cementing the low figure. The evidence package supporting disapproval, medical reports, specialist prognosis, future-care costings, must be in place before the application.

Fatal claims: the €35,000 solatium cap and the dependency maths

Where the claim arises from a fatal injury in Ireland, two entirely separate heads of damage are in play. Solatium covers the mental distress of statutory dependants. Dependency covers pecuniary loss of the deceased's income and services. Solatium is capped at €35,000 across all dependants under the Civil Liability Act 1961. Dependency has no statutory ceiling. Source: Noonan v Electricity Supply Board [2022] IEHC 374.

Two procedural oddities to note:

• No online application. Fatal-injury claims can't be submitted on the IRB online portal. A physical Fatal Accident Application Form must be posted or emailed to the IRB's Clonakilty office.
• Evidence differs. Standard Form B, the GP medical report, is insufficient. Coronial reports, death certificates and actuarial evidence of the deceased's earnings history are required.

The rejection calculus in fatal claims turns on dependency, not solatium. The €35,000 solatium cap is fixed, rejecting because the solatium "feels inadequate" won't yield more in court. Rejecting because the dependency calculation undervalues the deceased's earning trajectory can be entirely rational. Rejection is also sound where the calculation undervalues replacement-of-services cost. This is particularly true where the deceased was a sole earner with a long expected working life. Under Noonan v ESB, a widow can independently accept the IRB assessment for her own solatium without court approval, provided no minor-dependant claim is attached.

What if the assessment doesn't explain its reasoning?

Since Wolfe v Personal Injuries Assessment Board [2023] IECA 245, the IRB must provide reasoning with every assessment. The reasoning must let a claimant make an informed decision on acceptance. The Court of Appeal quashed an €11,000 assessment that didn't disclose how the dominant and lesser injuries had been weighted. Source: Irish Legal News on Wolfe v PIAB.

Mr Justice Binchy: claimants are entitled to understand the basis of the assessment without "resort to guesswork."

In practical 2026 terms, the Notice of Assessment should tell you which Personal Injuries Guidelines bracket applies to your dominant injury. It should also disclose what uplift, if any, was given for lesser injuries. If either is missing, ask the IRB for written clarification. This request doesn't stop the 28-day clock, so make it promptly, ideally in the first week. A clarification can arrive within the decision window and may materially change your acceptance analysis. Since Wolfe, the Board has been on notice that reason-giving is mandatory.

Mediation and the 10-day cooling-off period

IRB mediation is a free, voluntary alternative to standard assessment in Ireland. The Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 introduced it, with employer liability mediation commencing on 14 December 2023. Public liability mediation started on 8 May 2024, and motor liability mediation commenced on 12 December 2024. Mediation agreements carry a mandatory 10-day cooling-off period, a feature that formal assessment acceptance doesn't. Source: injuries.ie mediation guide.

Where mediation produces an agreement, either party can withdraw within 10 days without cost consequence. If neither withdraws, the agreement crystallises into an Order to Pay with the same enforceability as a court order. That cooling-off period is absent from the standard assessment track: formal acceptance of a Notice of Assessment is immediate and final.

If mediation fails or is withdrawn from, the claim transitions automatically to the standard assessment track. Different assessors handle it, with no access to the mediation file. This "procedural firewall" means disclosures made during mediation, including willingness to accept a lower figure, can't prejudice the subsequent formal assessment. For claimants unsure about acceptance, the mediation route is frequently a safer procedural choice than going straight to formal assessment.

Evidence shields: Section 50 and why the court will not see the IRB figure

Section 50 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 makes the IRB's monetary assessment inadmissible in subsequent Irish court proceedings. A trial judge hearing your post-authorisation claim won't know what the IRB valued it at. Source: Section 50 (as revised 2025).

Two related shields also apply. A claimant's written rejection, or deemed rejection, can't be used as evidence against them. A respondent's deemed acceptance doesn't admit liability. The IRB process operates as a hermetically sealed administrative exercise, a design feature that reduces the psychological cost of rejection.

One aspect the official guidance doesn't fully spell out: Section 50 is why it isn't tactically disadvantageous to test the Board's valuation. If the assessment comes back low, you can reject without fear that the low figure will be waved at the trial judge. The court starts from zero on quantum.

Psychological-only claims: safe to test, safe to reject

Since the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022, the IRB formally assesses wholly psychological injury claims. Covered conditions include PTSD, clinical depression, generalised anxiety, and adjustment disorders. The Board applies the psychiatric brackets in the Personal Injuries Guidelines. Source: Psychological injury claims in Ireland.

Psychological claims rose from approximately 5% of IRB awards in 2021 to 14% in H2 2024, reflecting both the 2022 Act reform and increased awareness. However, psychiatric prognoses are notoriously fluid, and administrative assessments of psychological injury are therefore highly susceptible to undervaluation.

The tactical reality is straightforward. Claimants can safely submit a wholly psychological claim to the IRB and test how the Board applies the psychiatric brackets. If the valuation is too low, reject. Under Section 50 the figure is inadmissible in later proceedings. The evidentiary firewall is particularly valuable here. Trial evidence on psychological injury relies heavily on expert psychiatrists. Their opinions mustn't be anchored by an administrative figure.

Source: Zaganczyk v. John Pettit Wexford [2023] IECA 223 (Court of Appeal, September 2023), application of Guidelines where psychiatric injury is the dominant injury.

Can I change my mind after accepting?

Acceptance of an IRB assessment is immediate and final once communicated in writing within the 28-day window. The High Court has refused applications from claimants seeking to un-accept an assessment already formally accepted. Source: Dillon Eustace analysis.

There is no cooling-off period on formal assessment acceptance, that feature exists only in the mediation track. If you accept and then discover a new medical development, the Order to Pay remains binding. A follow-up scan showing a more serious injury than initially diagnosed doesn't reopen the settlement. Your remedy, if any, is separate litigation against the original wrongdoer, an avenue foreclosed by the acceptance itself in most cases.

One detail that surprises clients: the 28-day window isn't a cooling-off period either. Day one acceptance is as binding as day twenty-eight acceptance. If in doubt, use the full window.

If you accept: the payment timeline from Order to Pay to cash in hand

After both parties accept an IRB assessment, the Board issues an Order to Pay under Section 38 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. The Order to Pay is enforceable as a rule of court. Payment typically reaches the claimant within eight to twelve weeks, though the timeline depends on respondent cooperation and any required deductions. Source: PIAB Act 2003, s.38.

Week-by-week: what actually happens

What can delay payment

Three factors commonly extend the 8-12 week window. First, a large or complex Statement of Recoverable Benefits request can take six weeks or more. Second, where the respondent disputes specific special-damages vouching, the insurer may request additional receipts. Third, where the claimant is a minor, the Section 35 court approval process adds 3-6 months before any funds are released. The funds are then placed into court for the minor's benefit until age 18.

If the respondent does not pay on time

The Order to Pay is enforceable as a rule of court. If the respondent delays unreasonably, the claimant's solicitor can apply to the Circuit Court to enforce the Order. In our firm's experience, enforcement is rarely needed because the Order carries the weight of a court judgment and insurers comply to avoid enforcement costs. Source: s.38 PIAB Act 2003.

What if the respondent's insurer becomes insolvent?

If the respondent's insurer becomes insolvent after you accept the IRB assessment, the Insurance Compensation Fund covers 65% of the compensation, capped at €825,000. The ICF is administered by the State Claims Agency and funded by a levy on Irish non-life insurance premiums. The Setanta Insurance collapse in 2014 established how these claims are handled. The Supreme Court ruling in Law Society v Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland confirmed the approach. Source: State Claims Agency ICF guidance.

The 65% / €825,000 rule

Under the Insurance Act 1964 as amended, the ICF pays 65% of each claim, capped at €825,000. A claimant with an accepted IRB assessment of €50,000 against an insolvent insurer receives €32,500 from the ICF. Payment timelines can extend to twelve months or longer because the Fund must first confirm the insurer's insolvency and validate the claim.

Motor claims: MIBI as Compensation Body

For motor-liability claims where the respondent's insurer is insolvent, a different rule applies. Where the insurer is licensed in another EU member state, the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland acts as Compensation Body. This operates under Article 25a of the EU Motor Insurance Directive. Source: MIBI Article 25a Agreement.

How insolvency risk affects the accept-or-reject decision

Where the respondent's insurer is known to be financially stressed, acceptance of an IRB figure may transfer the insolvency risk to the claimant. A rejection followed by court proceedings may allow the claim to be refreshed in ways an Order to Pay cannot. Options include claims against the insurer's directors or parent entities. This is an advanced tactical consideration and requires specialist advice from an Irish personal-injury solicitor.

IRB fees at each stage (and why they sit outside Section 51A)

The IRB charges two distinct fees. The claimant pays €45 on application. The respondent pays €1,050 when it consents to the Board assessing the claim. Both fees are statutory and set out on the IRB's official schedule. Source: injuries.ie fee schedule.

These fees sit outside the Section 51A costs calculation. A rejection triggers the s.51A tender-offer deeming on legal costs alone. The €45 claimant fee and the €1,050 respondent fee are sunk costs of the IRB process itself. They are not Calderbank-style costs recoverable on a successful court outcome.

The Civil Reform Bill 2025 does not alter the IRB fee structure. Any future fee increase requires regulations under Section 19 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, and none are currently proposed.

How to accept or reject in writing, the practical mechanics

To accept or reject an IRB assessment, reply in writing to the Injuries Resolution Board before the 28-day deadline shown on the Notice of Assessment. A signed letter or an email to the Board's claims team suffices, there's no prescribed form. Keep a copy and proof of sending. Source: injuries.ie contact.

What the written response must say

• Your full name and IRB reference number from the Notice.
• A clear statement: "I accept the assessment" or "I reject the assessment".
• Your signature or electronic signature on email.
• Date.

Where to send it

Email: post@injuries.ie, keeping the sent copy. Post: P.O. Box 8, Clonakilty, Cork, P85 YH98 by registered post for a delivery receipt.

What if the window is about to expire?

Email takes precedence over post for deadline purposes. If day 27 has arrived and you've not decided, the safer default is rejection in writing. A rejection preserves your options because the court route remains available. An acceptance you can't reverse, a rejection you can revisit through direct negotiation after the Authorisation issues.

What happens after rejection

When the claimant rejects, or has rejected by default, the IRB issues an Authorisation. The Authorisation issues under Section 32 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 and permits court proceedings. The claimant has six months from the Authorisation, plus any remaining statute-of-limitations time, to issue a Personal Injury Summons. Source: after-PIAB authorisation proceedings.

Rejection doesn't commit you to a full trial. 95%+ of authorised Irish personal-injury claims settle before trial. The window between Authorisation and issue of proceedings is often the strongest negotiation period. The respondent's insurer now faces the real risk of litigation costs. Many cases resolve in direct correspondence at this stage.

What the timeline estimates don't account for is the trial path. If the case does run to trial, the average resolution time for a Circuit Court personal-injury action is around 3-5 years from Authorisation. High Court timelines are longer. Post-Civil Reform Bill 2025, Circuit Court jurisdiction rising to €100,000 will move many cases into a faster venue.

Source: PIAB Act 2003, Section 32: authorisation to bring proceedings where an assessment is not accepted. National Claims Information Database (Central Bank) for comparative litigation durations.

The RBA Scheme: how social welfare benefits are clawed back from compensation

Under the Recovery of Benefits and Assistance Scheme, the Department of Social Protection claws back certain illness-related social welfare payments. The claw-back applies to personal-injury compensation in Ireland. The scheme has operated since August 2014 under Section 343R of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. It directly reduces the net amount a claimant receives after acceptance. Source: Citizens Information on RBA. gov.ie RBA Scheme.

Which benefits are recoverable?

Recoverable benefits cover the period from the date of injury to the date of the compensation award. Covered payments include Illness Benefit, Injury Benefit, Incapacity Supplement, Invalidity Pension, Disablement Pension, and Disability Allowance, where the incapacity relates to the accident. Source: gov.ie RBA covered benefits.

How the RBA calculation affects your accept-or-reject decision

The respondent or the respondent's insurer is legally required to deduct the RBA amount before paying the compensation. The compensator requests a Statement of Recoverable Benefits from the Department before settling. For a claimant on Illness Benefit at €232 per week for two years, the RBA claw-back can exceed €24,000. That sum leaves the compensation figure and goes back to the Department.

Why this matters at the accept-or-reject stage

A nominally strong IRB figure can be materially reduced once RBA is applied. If your IRB assessment is €40,000 and you have received €20,000 in recoverable benefits, your net receipt is €20,000 plus any non-recoverable means-tested benefits. Before accepting, ask your solicitor to model the RBA claw-back using a provisional Statement of Recoverable Benefits. Some claimants who would accept on gross numbers reject once net numbers are modelled. Source: gov.ie RBA procedures.

The RBA claw-back applies whether you accept the IRB assessment or reject and settle in court. It is a feature of the award, not of the route. But the timing of acceptance affects the RBA window: benefits received between rejection and eventual court settlement continue to accrue in the recoverable total.

Tax treatment of the compensation lump sum

Compensation for personal injury under the Injuries Resolution Board process is exempt from Capital Gains Tax. The exemption sits under Section 613(1)(c) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The lump sum itself is not taxable income. Investment income generated from the lump sum is, however, fully taxable under standard Revenue rules. Source: Revenue Commissioners guidance on PI compensation.

The lump sum itself: tax-exempt

Whether the claim resolves by IRB acceptance, mediation agreement, or court order, the compensation is exempt from Capital Gains Tax. Payments made under Section 38 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 via the Order to Pay attract the same exemption.

Investment income from the lump sum: fully taxable

Once the lump sum is invested in a deposit account, bond, fund, property, or equities, the income generated is taxable at the claimant's marginal rate. This covers interest, dividends, and rental income. DIRT applies to deposit interest. A compensation lump sum of €100,000 generating €3,000 of deposit interest in a year produces €3,000 of taxable income. The underlying capital remains tax-exempt.

Interaction with means-tested benefits

Capital from a compensation award can affect means-tested benefits such as Supplementary Welfare Allowance, Jobseeker's Allowance, and Disability Allowance. The treatment differs by scheme and is often complex. Claimants on means-tested benefits should seek Revenue or welfare-rights advice before accepting an IRB figure. This is particularly important where the lump sum is large enough to breach benefit thresholds.

Past loss-of-earnings: calculated net

Past loss of earnings within the compensation figure is calculated on net income after tax, not gross. The lump sum is paid tax-free, but the calculation already factors out theoretical tax the claimant would have paid if working. Your solicitor or the IRB assessor should have applied this rule. If the loss-of-earnings component looks like it used gross pay, it is undervalued.

The practical consequence at the accept-or-reject stage: the IRB figure before you is the final gross-to-you amount. No further tax deduction applies to the lump sum. But the investment decision after acceptance matters for long-term net value, especially for larger awards.

When to accept vs when to reject: the balanced view

The Irish personal-injury press covers rejection stories more than acceptance stories, but acceptance is statistically the majority outcome and often the rational one. The honest comparison runs in two directions.

The antonym is not a symmetrical choice. Acceptance is final and fast. Rejection is reversible only in the respondent's direction, not yours. If any row in the left column matches your situation, acceptance deserves serious weight before you move to the right column.

Source: 16.7% personal injury award increase will not go ahead (RTE, 9 July 2025), Minister for Justice declined to bring the uplift to the Oireachtas.

Additional resources

Injuries Resolution Board, official site at injuries.ie

Citizens Information, IRB plain-English guide

Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, revised text

Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021, Judicial Council PDF

Delaney v PIAB [2024] IESC 10, full judgment

Glossary of IRB terms used in this guide

The Injuries Resolution Board process uses specific terms with specific legal meanings. This glossary defines the 12 most-used terms on this page. Source: Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 as amended. Injuries Resolution Board claimant guide.

Notice of Assessment

The written valuation the Board serves on both parties after assessing a claim. It contains the general-damages figure, any special-damages figure, and the total. The 28-day claimant window and the 21-day respondent window both start from the date on the Notice.

Order to Pay

The enforceable payment order issued by the Board after both parties accept the assessment. Enforceable as a rule of court under Section 38 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003.

Authorisation

The document the Board issues when either party rejects the assessment, or under Section 17 where the Board declines to assess. It authorises the claimant to issue court proceedings within six months, plus any remaining time under the Statute of Limitations.

Deemed acceptance / deemed rejection

Silence at the end of the statutory window is treated as a decision under Section 31. Claimant silence is deemed rejection. Respondent silence is deemed acceptance.

Section 51A

The costs rule of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, amended by the 2022 Act from 13 February 2023. Treats a respondent's accepted assessment as a deemed tender offer. If the claimant rejects and fails to beat the figure in court, the claimant pays their own costs and the respondent's costs from rejection date.

Personal Injuries Guidelines

The 2021 Judicial Council framework of compensation brackets for every major injury category. Binding on the IRB and the courts following Delaney v PIAB [2024] IESC 10.

General damages

Compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity. Valued using the Personal Injuries Guidelines brackets.

Special damages

Compensation for quantifiable out-of-pocket losses. Covers medical bills, loss of earnings, travel expenses, and future care costs. Requires vouching with receipts.

Solatium

Statutory award for mental distress to statutory dependants after a fatal injury. Capped at €35,000 across all dependants under the Civil Liability Act 1961 as amended.

Dominant injury

The most significant injury in a multi-injury claim. The Board selects its Guidelines bracket and applies an uplift for lesser injuries rather than adding separate awards.

Next friend

A parent or guardian who acts on behalf of a minor claimant in the IRB and court process. Acceptance by a next friend is subject to court approval under Section 35.

RBA Scheme

The Recovery of Benefits and Assistance Scheme, administered by the Department of Social Protection under Section 343R of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. Claws back certain social welfare payments from personal-injury compensation in Ireland.

Sources: Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (Revised Acts) and Citizens Information.

References and Primary Sources

This page cites Irish statutes, appellate judgments, and official state-body reports. Sources are listed in the order first referenced in the article.

Legislation

1. Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, No. 46 of 2003, as amended to 2025. Law Reform Commission (Revised Acts).
2. PIAB Act 2003, Section 30: Notice of Assessment. Irish Statute Book.
3. PIAB Act 2003, Section 31: Deemed acceptance or non-acceptance. Irish Statute Book.
4. PIAB Act 2003, Section 35: Approval of court required for certain assessments. Irish Statute Book.
5. PIAB Act 2003, Section 38: Enforceability of assessment. Irish Statute Book.
6. PIAB Act 2003, Section 51A: Costs where claimant does not accept assessment, substituted 13 February 2023 by Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022, s.16.
7. Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022, No. 42 of 2022, signed into law 13 December 2022. Irish Statute Book.
8. Judicial Council Act 2019, No. 33 of 2019, ss.7 and 90 (statutory basis for Personal Injuries Guidelines). Irish Statute Book.
9. Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, Section 613(1)(c): CGT exemption for personal-injury damages (Revenue Tax and Duty Manual, 2024).
10. Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, Section 343R: Recoverable Benefits and Assistance scheme. Law Reform Commission.

Case law

11. Delaney v. Personal Injuries Assessment Board [2024] IESC 10, Supreme Court of Ireland, 9 April 2024. BAILII.
12. Wolfe v. Personal Injuries Assessment Board & Anor [2023] IECA 245, Court of Appeal of Ireland, 9 October 2023. BAILII.
13. McHugh v. Ferol [2023] IEHC 132, High Court of Ireland (Coffey J.), 16 March 2023. BAILII.
14. Grimes v. O'Dowd (Approved) [2022] IEHC 428, High Court of Ireland (Simons J.), 29 July 2022. BAILII.
15. C. v. An Unnamed Driver (Approved) [2023] IEHC 651, High Court of Ireland (Simons J.), 27 November 2023. BAILII.

Official reports, guidelines and state-body publications

16. Personal Injuries Guidelines (Judicial Council of Ireland, adopted 24 April 2021). First edition in force, draft amendments December 2024 not yet commenced.
17. Injuries Resolution Board Annual Report 2024 (published 9 July 2025). Source for 70% consent rate, 50% acceptance rate, 11.2-month assessment time, €168m total awards, €13,100 median award.
18. Motor Liability Personal Injury Claims & Awards 2019-2024 (Injuries Resolution Board, May 2025).
19. Injuries Resolution Board: Citizens Information, reviewed November 2025. Source for current €45 and €1,050 fee figures.
20. Minister announces commencement of the Injuries Resolution Board's mediation service for motor liability personal injury claims (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, 11 December 2024). Motor mediation commencement 12 December 2024.
21. Minister announces start of Injuries Resolution Board's mediation service for public liability personal injury claims (DETE, 8 May 2024).
22. Minister announces commencement of final phase of the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 (DETE, 14 December 2023). Employer-liability mediation commencement.
23. Motor Insurers Insolvency Compensation Fund (Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland). Basis for 100% motor-third-party top-up above the 65%/€825,000 ICF cap.
24. Supreme Court: Landmark decision on Personal Injuries Guidelines (Irish Legal News, 10 April 2024).
25. Court of Appeal Quashes PIAB Assessment due to Inadequate Information (Dillon Eustace Legal Updates, October 2023).

Citation methodology: Primary Irish statutes are cited to the Revised Acts consolidation maintained by the Law Reform Commission or to the Irish Statute Book. Case law is cited to BAILII. Official statistics are drawn from Injuries Resolution Board annual reports and Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment press releases. Where current-state figures (fees, social-welfare rates) are quoted, Citizens Information is cited as the authoritative public-facing source.