An Overview of the Personal Injuries Guidelines since their introduction in 2021

The publication of the General Scheme of the Judicial Council Amendment Bill 2026 provides us with an opportunity to consider the developments that have occurred since the introduction of the Personal Injuries Guidelines in 2021.

The Introduction of the Personal Injuries Guidelines

Pursuant to the Judicial Council Act 2019, the Personal Injuries Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) commenced in April 2021 and replaced the Book of Quantum. The purpose of the Guidelines was to ensure transparency and consistency in the assessment and award of general damages for personal injuries. The Guidelines covered a greater range of injuries than the Book of Quantum, to include psychiatric injuries, and reduced the awards for minor and moderate soft tissue injuries. Under the Guidelines, the most catastrophic injuries could attract an award of up to €550,000.

The Guidelines also outlined that in cases with multiple injuries, the appropriate approach for the judge is, where possible, to identify the injury and the bracket of damages within the Guidelines that best resembles the most significant of the claimant’s injuries. The judge should then value that injury and, thereafter, uplift the value to ensure that the claimant is fairly compensated for their lesser injuries.

Challenge to the Validity of the Guidelines

In 2022, a challenge to the validity of the Guidelines was put forward in Delaney v the Personal Injuries Board & Others [2024] IESC 10.

In brief, Ms Delaney fractured her ankle in April 2019 when she tripped on a defective public footpath. At the time of the incident, the basis for assessing damages was the Book of Quantum, under which Ms Delaney’s injury had the potential value of up to €34,000. Ms Delaney subsequently made a claim to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (“PIAB” – now known as the Injuries Resolution Board), as was required. Between the incident and the PIAB assessment, however, the Judicial Council approved the Guidelines. In May 2021, PIAB assessed Ms Delaney’s injuries under the Guidelines at €3,000, which was significantly lower than the Book of Quantum potential value.

Ms Delaney brought judicial review proceedings on the back of this assessment, challenging the basis for the Guidelines and asserting that PIAB erred in law in assessing the value of her injuries under the Guidelines, instead of the Book of Quantum.

Amongst other things, Ms Delaney alleged that the Guidelines were an impermissible delegation of the Oireachtas’ legislative power to the Judicial Council (an independent body made up of judges) and the provisions giving legal effect to the Guidelines were contrary to Article 35.2 of the Constitution and intruded on the independence of the judiciary.

The High Court refused the reliefs sought by Ms Delaney, but she was given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and this complex appeal was heard in 2024.

By a 5:2 majority, the Supreme Court found that the Guidelines were lawfully binding but any amendment to the Guidelines must now be laid before the Oireachtas for approval. Therefore, the status quo in relation to the Guidelines remained. A high level summary of the Supreme Court’s decision is as follows:-

• The Guidelines have legal effect, are legally binding and they should only be departed from when there is no reasonable proportion between the Guidelines and the award which should otherwise be made;
• The Guidelines were subsequently independently ratified by the Oireachtas by the enactment of the Family Leave and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2021;
• Section 7(2)(g) of the Judicial Council Act 2019, which required the Judicial Council to adopt the Guidelines, was unconstitutional in its present form, as it interfered with the independence of the judiciary; and
• Ms Delaney had no vested property or personal rights to have her claim assessed under the Book of Quantum and PIAB was correct in applying the new Guidelines to Ms Delaney’s case.

Review of the Guidelines

Pursuant to the Judicial Council Act 2019, the Personal Injuries Guidelines Committee must review the Guidelines every 3 years. This review process was undertaken in 2024, and the draft Amended Guidelines were submitted to the Minister for Justice in February 2025, as required.

The draft Amended Guidelines considered two matters in particular:-

1. The impact of inflation on personal injury awards since the adoption of the Guidelines; and
2. The evolving caselaw on the assessment of damages in multiple injuries cases.

Based on the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (index to measure inflation), the draft Amended Guidelines proposed an increase of 16.7% to awards of damages. This meant that catastrophic injuries would increase from a maximum payment of €550,000 to €642,000. These proposals were obviously seen as good news for Plaintiffs but, unsurprisingly, insurers were concerned about potential cost implications for the wider economy given the increase.

In assessing damages in cases that involve multiple injuries, the draft Amended Guidelines stated that the overriding consideration in all cases is proportionality. The total award must be proportionate when viewed in the context of the maximum and equivalent awards available under the Guidelines. To arrive at a just result, the judge must step back from the categories in order to assess the overall impact of all the injuries and place them on a scale that is proportionate. In the majority of cases, achieving proportionality is likely to involve the application of a global discount to the relevant categories.

In July 2025, the Minister for Justice ultimately confirmed that he would not bring a resolution to the Oireachtas to approve the draft Amended Guidelines. That same month, the Government unveiled its Action Plan for Insurance Reform.

Higgins v Coleman [2025] IEHC 757

In Higgins v Coleman [2025] IEHC 757, a road traffic accident claim, Mr Justice Higgins made some comments in relation to the applicability of the Guidelines as of December 2025. Mr Justice Higgins noted that:

“While the Review Committee made that recommendation [16.7% increase to valuations], it must be recognised that the necessary statutory architecture and procedures have yet to be finalised with respect to the applicability of the new suggested guidelines. The proposed amended guidelines do not have the force of law, and the court therefore regards as the applicable guidelines the current version from March 2021. At the same time, however, it would not be unreasonable for the court to take into account, in a general sense, the inflation that has occurred since that date and to not close its eyes to the important development whereby the body responsible for formulating the guidelines has itself determined that they have not kept abreast of inflation and are now, to an extent, out of date”

General Scheme of the Judicial Council Amendment Bill 2026

After the Oireachtas did not vote on the draft Amended Guidelines and following the Action Plan for Insurance Reform, the General Scheme of the Judicial Council Amendment Bill 2026 was published in January 2026 (the “General Scheme”).

The General Scheme, which sets out key areas to be covered by the legislation, proposes further amendments and reforms to the Judicial Council Act 2019, to include:

• Provision for a mechanism for the Judicial Council to reconsider revised Guidelines, should the Oireachtas not approve Guidelines presented to them;
• An increase to the review period of the Guidelines from 3 years to 5 years;
• The Judicial Council will be required to consult with the Injuries Resolution Board and other stakeholders when reviewing the Guidelines; and
• The Judicial Council will also be required to conduct research on damages for personal injuries.

Notably, the General Scheme does not include any mechanism to adjust awards for inflation. Pre-legislative scrutiny of the General Scheme by the Oireachtas Committee concluded in February 2026.

Currently, the Guidelines, as of 2021, remain unchanged and are in force and we will have to wait and see the finalised wording of the Judicial Council Amendment Bill.

For more information, please contact Genevieve Brindley or another member of the Healthcare team.

*This information is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute, nor should be regarded as, a substitute for taking legal advice that is tailored to your circumstances.