Twomey v Jeral Ltd & ors (Approved) [2022] IECA 177 (16 June 2022)

Twomey v Jeral Ltd & ors (Approved) [2022] IECA 177 (16 June 2022)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's findings regarding the plaintiff's inability to work more than three days a week were supported by credible evidence and adequately reasoned. The trial judge did not err in accepting the plaintiff's evidence or in rejecting the defendants' medical evidence. However, the 40% Reddy v Bates deduction applied to future loss of earnings was excessive and unsupported by evidence; the appropriate deduction was 15%, consistent with established jurisprudence and the plaintiff's employment history.

Citation
[2022] IECA 177
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Joann Twomey; Defendant/appellant: Jeral Limited; Defendant/appellant: Jeremy Buckley; Defendant/appellant: Alice Buckley
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Defendants' appeal dismissed; plaintiff's cross-appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Loss of Earnings, Reddy V Bates Deduction, Appellate Review, Reasoning of Trial Judge
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Loss of Earnings Reddy V Bates Deduction Appellate Review Reasoning of Trial Judge

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joann Twomey

Plaintiff/respondent

Jeral Limited

Defendant/appellant

Jeremy Buckley

Defendant/appellant

Alice Buckley

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding special damages for loss of earnings for specified periods
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in applying a 40% Reddy v Bates deduction to future loss of earnings
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to adequately engage with the evidence, particularly regarding alternative employment and medical opinions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's findings regarding the plaintiff's inability to work more than three days a week were supported by credible evidence and adequately reasoned. The trial judge did not err in accepting the plaintiff's evidence or in rejecting the defendants' medical evidence. However, the 40% Reddy v Bates deduction applied to future loss of earnings was excessive and unsupported by evidence; the appropriate deduction was 15%, consistent with established jurisprudence and the plaintiff's employment history.

Court Disposition

Defendants' appeal dismissed; plaintiff's cross-appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Substitute High Court order with judgment in the sum of €218,175 in favour of the plaintiff.
  • Plaintiff entitled to costs of both the appeal and cross-appeal, subject to any application by defendants within 14 days.