Hanley v. Minister for Defence [1999] IESC 86; [1999] 4 IR 393; [2000] 2 ILRM 276 (7th December, 1999)

Hanley v. Minister for Defence [1999] IESC 86; [1999] 4 IR 393; [2000] 2 ILRM 276 (7th December, 1999)

The Supreme Court held that it is appropriate and just to adopt a formula or guideline for the assessment of damages in army deafness cases to ensure consistency and fairness, subject to judicial discretion in individual cases. The High Court's formula was found to be excessive and likely to lead to disproportionate awards. The Department of Defence's proposed scale (the State Scale) was adopted as a fair and just guideline for similar cases, including a component for future age-related hearing loss, but courts retain discretion to depart from the guideline where justified by the facts.

Citation
[2000] 2 ILRM 276
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Kevin Hanley; Defendants/appellants: The Minister for Defence, Ireland and The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury—assessment of Damages (appeal) / Supreme Court—appeal From High Court Judgment on Quantum Only
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court formula disapproved; Department of Defence scale adopted as guideline.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Hearing Loss, Army Deafness Claims, Judicial Guidelines, Consistency in Awards, Future Loss Calculation
Tort Law Personal Injury Employment Law Assessment of Damages Hearing Loss Army Deafness Claims Judicial Guidelines Consistency in Awards +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Hanley

Plaintiff/respondent

The Minister for Defence, Ireland and The Attorney General

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury—assessment of Damages (appeal) / Supreme Court—appeal From High Court Judgment on Quantum Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is it appropriate for the court to confirm a formula or guideline for damages in army deafness cases?
  2. 2 Was the High Court's formula for damages correct or excessive?
  3. 3 Should the Department of Defence's proposed scale be adopted as a guideline for similar cases?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that it is appropriate and just to adopt a formula or guideline for the assessment of damages in army deafness cases to ensure consistency and fairness, subject to judicial discretion in individual cases. The High Court's formula was found to be excessive and likely to lead to disproportionate awards. The Department of Defence's proposed scale (the State Scale) was adopted as a fair and just guideline for similar cases, including a component for future age-related hearing loss, but courts retain discretion to depart from the guideline where justified by the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court formula disapproved; Department of Defence scale adopted as guideline.

Orders

  • The scale of damages proposed by the Department of Defence is to be applied as a guideline in similar cases, subject to judicial discretion.
  • Courts may depart from the guideline where the facts of a particular case so require to achieve justice.