The High Court has reserved judgment in an important preliminary issue raised in the lead challenge against new guidelines for personal injury awards.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan has been asked to determine a motion on whether a judge, who took part in last year's vote by the Irish judiciary to adopt the guidelines, should recuse themselves from hearing a case brought on behalf of Bridget Delaney from Co Waterford, challenging the guidelines.
Her action, which is one of several proceedings against the State, and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), the government body that makes personal injury awards, aimed at setting aside guidelines regarding awards for personal injuries claims, has been deemed to be the lead or test challenge.
It centres around a vote taken in March 2021 by the Judicial Council, the body made up of all the State's judges, to adopt the new guidelines.
Both PIAB and the State oppose all of the actions.
In a pretrial motion, Ms Delaney, represented by Feichin McDonagh SC and Dermott Cahill SC, want a High Court judge who did not take part in the vote to hear her case, and other associated preliminary motions brought on their client's behalf.
It was submitted to the court that there could be a perception of bias if a judge who voted the guidelines were to hear the case, and that a judge appointed to the High Court after the vote was taken should hear her case.
The State has opposed the motion.
In his submissions to the court Eoin McCullough SC for the State said that once they are appointed all judges of the state automatically become members of the Judicial Council.
Counsel added that if any aspect of the case were to be appealed all but one judge of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal were members of the council at the time the vote on the guidelines was taken.
Therefore, if Ms Delaney's legal team are correct on this issue there was no division of either of those courts that could hear any such appeal.
The Judicial Council has taken a neutral stance on the motion.
Following the conclusion of submissions Mr Justice Meenan said he was reserving his decision and would give a written ruling on the recusal motion as soon as possible.
The judge said he hoped to be able to give his judgment sometime next week.
Other preliminary issues in Ms Delaney's case and several other challenges are due to be mentioned before the court next week.
In her judicial review proceedings against PIAB, the Judicial Council, Ireland and the Attorney General, Ms Delaney seeks orders quashing the assessment PIAB made in respect of her claim, and the council's decision to adopt the new guidelines.
Ms Delaney of Cruachan, Knockateemore, Dungarvan, Co Waterford, also seeks a range of declarations including that PIAB acted outside its powers, breached her rights to natural and constitutional justice, and that the Judicial Council acted outside of its powers in adopting the personal injuries guidelines.
She claims she fractured a bone in her right ankle, after she tripped and fell at a public footpath at Pinewood Estate, Dungarvan, Co Waterford, on 12 April 2019.
She alleges she suffered her injuries due to the negligence of Waterford City and Council.
In June 2019 she submitted a claim to PIAB, seeking damages.
At the time she claims PIAB was required to have regard to the general guidelines as to the amounts that may be awarded or assessed in personal injury claims, contained in the Book of Quantum, when assessing her application and making an award.
She claims that the appropriate awards for the injury she sustained ranged from between €18,000 and €34,000.
In May PIAB said in its assessment of her claim that she was entitled to €3,000 in general damages.
She rejects this assessment, says it is insufficient, and does not compensate her for the injuries she sustained.
She claims the assessment amounted to an error in law by PIAB and was in breach of fair procedures.
She also claims her assessment was delayed because PIAB was awaiting the coming into force of new Personal Injuries Guidelines and the assessment of her claim was wrongly made under the new guidelines.
She also claims that the requirement in the 2019 Judicial Council Act that members of the judiciary vote on the new guidelines is inconsistent with the independence of the judiciary and amount to an impermissible delegation to the administration of justice to the council.
She also claims that the adoption of the guidelines has violated Ms Delaney's constitutional right to access to the courts.
The claims are denied.
