Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Expert reports not admissible in assessment of damages where not agreed by defendants
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in assessing damages for personal injury arising from the loss of two teeth in an unprovoked violent assault, where judgment had been granted in default of defence: (a) determines that expert reports were not admissible where they had not been agreed by the defendant, or even served on the defendant, and where the experts were not present to give oral evidence; and (b) assesses damages at €36,500, to include: €17,500 general damages for pain and suffering; €7,500 aggravated damages, including psychological distress; and €11,200 special damage, to include the cost of dental implants at approximately €10,000.
Assessment of damages - judgment granted in default of defence - defendant aware of hearing but chose not to participate - reliance of plaintiff on medical reports - no oral evidence from experts - reports not served on defendants - decision of plaintiff's legal team to proceed on the basis of plaintiff's own evidence - loss of teeth - teeth knocked out by defendant in violent unprovoked attack - plaintiff wearing dental plate - option of implants costing 9K to 10K - Book of Quantum - loss of more than one tooth - psychological impact - aggravated damages - special damage - loss of earnings.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
