Walsh -v- Tesco Ireland Ltd [2017] IECA 64 (03 March 2017)

Walsh -v- Tesco Ireland Ltd [2017] IECA 64 (03 March 2017)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court's awards for general damages were proportionate and supported by evidence, but the award for future loss of earnings must be reduced by 15% for the exigencies of life, and €20,000 must be deducted for double counting. The award for future urology costs must be reduced to exclude the cost of catheters covered by the Drugs Repayment Scheme. The award for rhizotomy procedures must be reduced to reflect the correct frequency. The remaining awards were supported by credible evidence and the application of the RRR was consistent with prevailing law.

Citation
[2017] IECA 64
Parties
Plaintiff / Respondent: Patricia Walsh; Defendant / Appellant: Tesco Ireland Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and varied; damages reduced as specified.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Future Pecuniary Loss, General Damages, Special Damages, Discount Rate (rrr), Appellate Review, Loss of Earnings, Home Help, Aids and Appliances, Urology Costs
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Future Pecuniary Loss General Damages Special Damages Discount Rate (rrr) Appellate Review +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Walsh

Plaintiff / Respondent

Tesco Ireland Limited

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in the assessment and calculation of damages for personal injuries, including the application of the real rate of return (RRR), double counting of loss of earnings, and evidential support for special damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court's awards for general damages were proportionate and supported by evidence, but the award for future loss of earnings must be reduced by 15% for the exigencies of life, and €20,000 must be deducted for double counting. The award for future urology costs must be reduced to exclude the cost of catheters covered by the Drugs Repayment Scheme. The award for rhizotomy procedures must be reduced to reflect the correct frequency. The remaining awards were supported by credible evidence and the application of the RRR was consistent with prevailing law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and varied; damages reduced as specified.

Orders

  • Deduct €20,000 from total damages for double-counted loss of earnings.
  • Reduce future loss of earnings by 15% for exigencies of life.