Moloney v Dunne & Anor (Approved) [2024] IEHC 84 (15 February 2024)

Moloney v Dunne & Anor (Approved) [2024] IEHC 84 (15 February 2024)

It is unlawful to insert terms into Personal Injury Settlement Orders that financially prejudice an unrepresented third party, such as the Department of Social Protection, when those terms are not based on evidence tested in open court but are agreed solely between the settling parties for their financial benefit.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 84
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Jason Moloney; Respondent/defendant: Cathal Dunne; Respondent/defendant: Bus Eireann
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Circuit Court Appeal / Judgment on Application to Insert Terms Into Personal Injury Settlement Order
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Personal Injury Settlement Orders, Recoverable Benefits, Court Orders on Settlement, Third Party Prejudice, Legal Certainty
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Social Welfare Law Personal Injury Settlement Orders Recoverable Benefits Court Orders on Settlement Third Party Prejudice Legal Certainty

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Moloney

Appellant/plaintiff

Cathal Dunne

Respondent/defendant

Bus Eireann

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Circuit Court Appeal / Judgment on Application to Insert Terms Into Personal Injury Settlement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is it lawful to insert terms into Personal Injury Settlement Orders that financially prejudice an unrepresented third party (Department of Social Protection)?
  2. 2 Does s 343R(2) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 apply to settlements?
  3. 3 Should courts insert factual terms not determined by evidence into settlement orders?

Ratio Decidendi

It is unlawful to insert terms into Personal Injury Settlement Orders that financially prejudice an unrepresented third party, such as the Department of Social Protection, when those terms are not based on evidence tested in open court but are agreed solely between the settling parties for their financial benefit.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Appeal struck out; all existing orders vacated; no order as to costs
  • Refusal to insert terms stating no claim for loss of earnings in the settlement order