Dillon v Irish Life Assurance Plc (Approved) [2025] IESC 37 (24 July 2025)

Dillon v Irish Life Assurance Plc (Approved) [2025] IESC 37 (24 July 2025)

A claim for distress, upset and anxiety that does not amount to a recognised psychiatric injury does not fall within the statutory definition of 'personal injury' under the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. Therefore, PIAB authorisation is not required for such claims, and the High Court and Circuit Court erred in dismissing the proceedings on that basis. The requirement for PIAB authorisation would, in this context, render the exercise of the right to compensation for non-material damage under the GDPR excessively difficult and is incompatible with EU law.

Citation
[2025] IESC 37
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Patrick Dillon; Defendant/respondent: Irish Life Assurance Plc
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Which Affirmed Circuit Court Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury Definition, Non Material Damage, PIAB Authorisation Requirement, GDPR Compensation, Statutory Construction
Data Protection Tort Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Personal Injury Definition Non Material Damage PIAB Authorisation Requirement GDPR Compensation +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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Dillon

Plaintiff/appellant

Irish Life Assurance Plc

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Which Affirmed Circuit Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a claim for distress, upset and anxiety arising from a data breach constitute a claim for 'personal injury' under the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003?
  2. 2 Is the requirement for PIAB authorisation compatible with Article 82 of the GDPR for claims of non-material damage?

Ratio Decidendi

A claim for distress, upset and anxiety that does not amount to a recognised psychiatric injury does not fall within the statutory definition of 'personal injury' under the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. Therefore, PIAB authorisation is not required for such claims, and the High Court and Circuit Court erred in dismissing the proceedings on that basis. The requirement for PIAB authorisation would, in this context, render the exercise of the right to compensation for non-material damage under the GDPR excessively difficult and is incompatible with EU law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court and Circuit Court set aside
  • Proceedings to continue without requirement for PIAB authorisation