# If one rejects an award from PIAB how likely that the high court will award higher?



## Ed054 (3 Nov 2008)

If a person rejects an award from PIAB how likely is it that the high court will award a higher amount?


----------



## mf1 (3 Nov 2008)

*Re: PIAB Awards*



Ed054 said:


> If a person rejects an award from PIAB how likely is it that the high court will award a higher amount?



Who can say? Without knowing the facts of the case, whether PIAB have specific reasons for offering what the injured party may regard as low, whether the injured party is ignoring or accepting his own legal advice ( if any) .....................

mf


----------



## McCrack (3 Nov 2008)

*Re: PIAB Awards*

Word of warning, if you reject PIAB's assessment and let the matter run and the court awards less than PIAB costs can be awarded against you...it's a real sting, only a matter of time before that legislation is challenged in my opinion.


----------



## Flick (9 Nov 2008)

*Re: PIAB Awards*

Also, you will be paying solicitors fees to bring a case in the circuit/high court which could outstrip any gain made by a court award. 

PIAB awards are on the generous side so i would think carefully before you decide to reject and as the OP says, if a judge awards less than what PIAB awarded then you will pick up the insurance company's legal costs.


----------



## Vanilla (9 Nov 2008)

*Re: PIAB Awards*



Flick said:


> PIAB awards are on the generous side


 
Have you any evidence to support this view?


----------



## nuac (9 Nov 2008)

*Re: PIAB Awards*

If you reject the PIAB award and are awarded less in your court action you can end up paying the defendants costs and your own costs of the action.

Not sure if PIAB awards over generous - they have a book of quantum but afaik it has not been updated for some years.

Before making a decision you need to get up todate medical reports and any other appropriate assessments and discuss with your solicitor and barrister.


----------



## Askar (9 Nov 2008)

*Re: PIAB Awards*



McCrack said:


> Word of warning, if you reject PIAB's assessment and let the matter run and the court awards less than PIAB costs can be awarded against you...it's a real sting, only a matter of time before that legislation is challenged in my opinion.


 

What would be the basis of this challenge?

This cost risk mirrors the lodgement system for the personal injury actions which predated the PIAB - Broadly speaking, under this system the defendant could lodge an amount in court, and if court award lower then lodgement the plaintiff was liable to defendants legal costs. Presumably the purpose of this is to incentivise realistic settlement of claims, and overcome a principal agent moral hazard - as lawyers (particularly Barristers) potentially get more money the more the claim is litigated. So a Solicitor would do well to consider his/her advices on quantum before recommending appeal, and certainly would be open to a claim of negligence if (s)he failed to appraise client of risk of proceeding with appeal where subsequent court award does not exceed original PIAB award.

I recall an RTE primetime recently in which a representative of PIAB basically said that, in some cases, the injuries disclosed to the PIAB were not as extensive as the injuries subsequently pleaded on appeal.


----------



## MandaC (9 Nov 2008)

*Re: PIAB Awards*



Flick said:


> Also, you will be paying solicitors fees to bring a case in the circuit/high court which could outstrip any gain made by a court award.
> 
> PIAB awards are on the generous side so i would think carefully before you decide to reject and as the OP says, if a judge awards less than what PIAB awarded then you will pick up the insurance company's legal costs.



I know two people who went through the PIAB process and they actually found that the PIAB awards were not on the generous side.  Both were glad they engaged a Solicitor from the get go who had collated their evidence correctly for them.


----------



## allthedoyles (10 Nov 2008)

*Re: If one rejects an award from PIAB how likely that the high court will award highe*

In my opinion  'judges differ and clients suffer ' 
Dont risk it - PIAB is your best option. 
Awards can be thrown out ( when there is a successful appeal )  and a new judge with a higher court can actually be a huge disadvantage to you.

Use PIAB's Book of Quantum  to estimate your award


----------



## dazza21ie (10 Nov 2008)

*Re: If one rejects an award from PIAB how likely that the high court will award highe*



allthedoyles said:


> In my opinion 'judges differ and clients suffer '
> *Dont risk it - PIAB is your best option.*
> Awards can be thrown out ( when there is a successful appeal ) and a new judge with a higher court can actually be a huge disadvantage to you.
> 
> *Use PIAB's Book of Quantum to estimate your award*


 
PIAB is usally the only option i.e. you have to go there before you go to court. 

As said above the Book of Quantum has not been updated for a number of years now so the awards are being erroded by inflation.


----------



## csirl (11 Nov 2008)

*Re: If one rejects an award from PIAB how likely that the high court will award highe*

I've come across a couple of cases where HC awarded less than PIAB. Big risk.


----------



## Latrade (11 Nov 2008)

*Re: If one rejects an award from PIAB how likely that the high court will award highe*



dazza21ie said:


> PIAB is usally the only option i.e. you have to go there before you go to court.
> 
> As said above the Book of Quantum has not been updated for a number of years now so the awards are being erroded by inflation.


 
Isn't the BoQ just based on pain and suffering? The value of a broken finger doesn't change. Other aspects of lost revenue and future losses are separate. So there's no need to update the BoQ. 

In addition, the BoQ would attach much higher values here to injuries than in other countries as they based it on previous compensation levels decided on in courts.

The whole point of this particular aspect (which btw is actually rarely imposed bu judges, in fact I think it has yet to be used just as they are ignoring the issue of late claims), is that the PIAB has made what is a fair and reasonable "offer" on the pain and suffering that has resulted. If it is a reasonable offer, then there is no reason for the individual to turn it down other than wanting more money/greed. If the judge agrees with the PIAB then it also means that it has been a waste of the court's time so why should the defendant have to pay the costs when they were prepared to pay the compensation suggested by the PIAB?


----------



## McCrack (11 Nov 2008)

*Re: If one rejects an award from PIAB how likely that the high court will award highe*

Yes but the whole point is PIAB wont award a Claimants costs where a court will (provided the Plaintiff is successful and the amount awarded is equal or higher than PIAB)


----------



## Latrade (11 Nov 2008)

*Re: If one rejects an award from PIAB how likely that the high court will award highe*



McCrack said:


> Yes but the whole point is PIAB *wont* award a Claimants costs where a court will (provided the Plaintiff is successful and the amount awarded is equal or higher than PIAB)


 
Makes it sound like they refuse to whereas they _don't_ award costs because it's supposed to be a simple non-adverserial environment and so little or no legal costs need be incurred. Miles away from the need for representation in court situation.


----------



## Cheeus (12 Nov 2008)

*Re: If one rejects an award from PIAB how likely that the high court will award highe*

PIAB seems like a good idea for small uncomplicated claims, but is not suitable for serious claims. It is an added stress to those with serious claims to have to submit to PIAB, wait, then have their cases passed by PIAB to go straight to court. People still have legal fees and have had their claims delayed often at great personal stress and cost to themselves. Some people will have believed the advice that they didn't need a solicitor and will have missed out on early legal advice that is essential for serious cases.

The statistics from PIAB also say nothing of the people who accept a settlement only to regret it as their injuries persist and cause greater problems than anticipated.

People are very vulnerable when involved in accidents and may settle too quickly to avoid financial hardship in the short-term.  Everyone with a serious injury should engage a solicitor.

Perhaps the debate should be if PIAB pays out too much to those with only minor injuries who make full recoveries very quickly?


----------

