Zaganczyk v John Pettit Wexford UnLtd Company & Anor (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 223 (20 September 2023)

Zaganczyk v John Pettit Wexford UnLtd Company & Anor (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 223 (20 September 2023)

The High Court erred in classifying the plaintiff's PTSD as 'Serious' rather than 'Moderate' and in making separate awards for PTSD and other psychiatric injuries, resulting in an excessive and disproportionate award. The appropriate approach is to award at the top of the moderate bracket for psychiatric injury and maintain the award for scarring, resulting in a total general damages award of €60,000.

Citation
[2023] IECA 223
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Agnieszka Zaganczyk; Defendant/appellant: John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company; Defendant/appellant: C&M Delaney Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From High Court Assessment of Damages
Outcome
appeal allowed in part; High Court award varied
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Judicial Council Personal Injuries Guidelines, Psychiatric Injury, Scarring, Proportionality in Damages
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Judicial Council Personal Injuries Guidelines Psychiatric Injury Scarring 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agnieszka Zaganczyk

Plaintiff/respondent

John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company

Defendant/appellant

C&M Delaney Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From High Court Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court misapplied the Judicial Council Personal Injuries Guidelines in assessing damages for psychiatric and physical injuries
  2. 2 Whether separate awards for PTSD and other psychiatric injuries were justified
  3. 3 Whether the overall award was proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in classifying the plaintiff's PTSD as 'Serious' rather than 'Moderate' and in making separate awards for PTSD and other psychiatric injuries, resulting in an excessive and disproportionate award. The appropriate approach is to award at the top of the moderate bracket for psychiatric injury and maintain the award for scarring, resulting in a total general damages award of €60,000.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; High Court award varied

Orders

  • Substitute an award of €60,000 for general damages
  • Award special damages of €3,181.90