Nolan -v- Wirenski [2016] IECA 56 (25 February 2016)

Nolan -v- Wirenski [2016] IECA 56 (25 February 2016)

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court made two findings of fact unsupported by evidence: that the plaintiff could not lift her right arm above the horizontal and that she was still taking medication for her injuries, when in fact the medication was for a pre-existing condition. The award of damages was therefore excessive and disproportionate to the actual injuries sustained. The appropriate award was €50,000 for pain and suffering to date and €15,000 for future pain and suffering.

Citation
[2016] IECA 56
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Mary Nolan; Defendant/appellant: Rafal Wirenski
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order varied
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Appellate Review, Credibility of Evidence, Proportionality in Damages
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Appellate Review Credibility of Evidence Proportionality in Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Nolan

Plaintiff/respondent

Rafal Wirenski

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's award of damages was supported by credible evidence and proportionate to the plaintiff's injuries
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's disability and medication use
  3. 3 The proper approach for appellate courts in reviewing awards of damages in personal injury cases

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court made two findings of fact unsupported by evidence: that the plaintiff could not lift her right arm above the horizontal and that she was still taking medication for her injuries, when in fact the medication was for a pre-existing condition. The award of damages was therefore excessive and disproportionate to the actual injuries sustained. The appropriate award was €50,000 for pain and suffering to date and €15,000 for future pain and suffering.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order varied

Orders

  • Award of damages reduced to €50,000 for pain and suffering to date and €15,000 for pain and suffering into the future
  • High Court order otherwise varied accordingly