Robert Emmet Bourke & Co.Solicitors and Notary Public, Dublin 2

Home / Insights

From the Book of Quantum to the Personal Injuries Guidelines

By Adam McCarthy · 23 October 2026

Every personal injuries claim in Ireland turns, in the end, on a single question, which is what the injury is worth. For most of the last century the answer lay in the collective memory of the Bar and the Bench. In 2004 the State tried to write it down. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board and its Book of Quantum were meant to take the guesswork out of general damages and the lawyers out of the process. Twenty years on the Board survives under a new name, the Book has been replaced by Guidelines drafted by judges and given the force of law by the Oireachtas, the Supreme Court has upheld them, and a review that would have raised every figure by a sixth has been left on the table by the Government. This article traces that history, explains how the courts and the Board now assess injuries, and sets out where the system stands in October 2026.

A board, a book and an instruction to the courts

The Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 was a response to the insurance crisis of the early 2000s, when premiums had risen sharply and the cost of litigating even modest claims was blamed for much of the increase. The Act created a body that would assess damages in uncontested cases without a hearing and without the need for lawyers on either side. The Board began accepting employer liability claims on 1 June 2004 and, from 22 July 2004, every personal injuries claim other than medical negligence had to pass through it before proceedings could issue.1

The Board needed a yardstick, and section 22 of the Act obliged it to prepare and publish a document, to be known as the Book of Quantum, containing general guidelines as to the amounts that might be awarded or assessed for specified types of injury. Its assessors were to make their assessments having regard to that Book.2 The Oireachtas then did something that had not been done before. Section 22 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 provided that a court assessing damages in a personal injuries action should have regard to the Book of Quantum.3 For the first time an Irish judge was pointed by statute to a published scale, although the obligation was only to have regard to it, and judges differed widely in how much weight they gave it.

What the Book was and what it was not

The first Book of Quantum appeared in June 2004. It was a short document that grouped injuries by part of the body and gave a range of figures for each, derived from an analysis of settlements and awards. It was not revised for twelve years. By the time the second edition was published in October 2016 the figures had drifted so far from practice that practitioners had largely stopped citing the Book, and the 2016 edition, compiled by external consultants from a sample of more than 51,000 closed claims from 2013 and 2014 drawn from court awards, insurer settlements, State Claims Agency cases and the Board's own files, was as much a record of what had been paid as a statement of what should be.4 It was arranged in six regions of the body and four bands of severity, from minor to severe and permanent, and it covered many more injuries than its predecessor, but its bands were wide, a good many injuries were left out altogether, and because it was built from settlements it carried within it whatever premium insurers had paid to avoid the costs of a hearing.

The courts were meanwhile moving in the opposite direction. From 2015 the Court of Appeal, in a series of judgments delivered mainly by Irvine J, cut a succession of High Court awards for modest injuries, holding that general damages must be proportionate both to the maximum available for the most catastrophic injuries and to the awards made for greater and lesser injuries, and that an award for a minor soft tissue injury with a full recovery had to be modest in that scale.5 The maximum itself had been fixed by the Supreme Court in Sinnott v Quinnsworth in 1984 at IR£150,000, raised by the High Court to €450,000 in 2009, and was set at €500,000 by the Supreme Court in Morrissey v Health Service Executive in 2020.6 The principle of proportionality was therefore well established before any guideline was written, and it was the Court of Appeal's approach, more than the Book of Quantum, that the Guidelines would later adopt.

The Personal Injuries Commission

The political pressure came from the Cost of Insurance Working Group, which in 2017 set up a Personal Injuries Commission chaired by Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, the former President of the High Court. Its first report, in December 2017, dealt with the medical side, recommending a standard approach to the examination and reporting of soft tissue injuries. Its second and final report, in July 2018, produced the figure that drove everything that followed. Using settlement data supplied by motor insurers covering about four fifths of the Irish market, and comparing it with figures from the Ministry of Justice in London, the Commission found that general damages for soft tissue injuries in Ireland were on average 4.4 times those in England and Wales. Soft tissue injuries made up roughly three quarters of the motor claims in the sample. The Commission recommended that the Judicial Council, then still a Bill, be asked to draw up guidelines for general damages and to review them every three years, that the Book of Quantum be judicially recalibrated as a starting point, and that the Board's statutory role in compiling it be removed.7

The Judicial Council and the Guidelines

The Judicial Council Act 2019 did what the Commission asked. Section 7 made the adoption of personal injuries guidelines a function of the Council, section 18 established a Personal Injuries Guidelines Committee of seven judges to draft them and to review them within three years of adoption and every three years thereafter, section 90 set out what the Committee was to take into account, including the level of damages awarded by the courts in Ireland and in comparable jurisdictions, and section 99 rewrote section 22 of the 2004 Act so that a court would have regard to the Guidelines rather than the Book of Quantum and, where it departed from them, would state its reasons for doing so.8

The Committee, chaired by Ms Justice Mary Irvine, was established on 28 April 2020 and reported on 9 December 2020. It did not start from the Book of Quantum, which it found lacked detail, omitted many injuries and may have had the cost of litigation built into its figures. Instead it examined every written judgment on damages from 2017 to 2019, gathered summaries of several hundred further awards, and had its members value the same injuries under the judicial guidelines of Northern Ireland and of England and Wales so that the results could be compared. That exercise found Irish awards to be between 1.2 and 1.3 times those in Northern Ireland and between two and 2.3 times those in England and Wales. The Commission's figure of 4.4 had been built on settlements rather than court awards, and the Committee treated the lower multiples as the true measure of the gap.9

The Guidelines were put to the full Judicial Council on 6 March 2021 and adopted by 83 votes to 63, with 146 of the 168 judges taking part. They came into force on 24 April 2021, and section 30 of the Family Leave and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2021 amended the Board's own Act so that they applied to every claim not yet assessed, whenever the accident had happened.10 The document that resulted is far more detailed than the Book it replaced. It runs to several hundred brackets, each with a description of the injury, its severity and its likely course, and it covers psychiatric injury, scarring and other categories the Book had not addressed. The maximum for the most catastrophic injuries rose from €500,000 to €550,000 and a number of severe injuries were given modestly higher brackets. Minor injuries were reduced sharply. A simple undisplaced fracture of the nose with a full recovery, which the Book of Quantum had valued at between €18,000 and €21,000, was placed in a bracket of €500 to €3,000, and the same bracket applies to a minor head injury with a substantial recovery within six months. For a claimant with more than one injury the Guidelines direct the assessor to identify the most significant injury, value it within its bracket, and then increase the figure to reflect the lesser injuries, taking care that the total remains proportionate.

How the courts have applied them

The first years of the Guidelines produced little argument about the brackets themselves and a good deal about multiple injuries. In Meehan v Shawcove Limited, decided under the old regime but with the Guidelines in view, Noonan J in the Court of Appeal warned that valuing each injury separately and adding the results was the surest route to over-compensation.11 In Lipinski v Whelan, Coffey J in the High Court applied the Guidelines' own method, valuing the dominant injury and applying a single uplift for the rest, while in McHugh v Ferol, Murphy J preferred to value each additional injury within its own bracket and then discount the total for the overlap between them, holding that the uplift was not capped by the value of the dominant injury and could exceed it.12 The Court of Appeal returned to the question in Zaganczyk v John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company in 2023, where Noonan J held that whatever arithmetic was used, the final figure had to be tested against the brackets for more serious injuries as a reality check, and reduced an award for post traumatic stress disorder and burns by a third because the total had come to exceed what the Guidelines allowed for a severe neck injury involving spinal fusion.13 In Wolfe v Personal Injuries Assessment Board the same court held that the Board must explain how it has valued the lesser injuries when it assesses a multiple injury claim, so that a claimant can see the basis of the figure before deciding whether to accept it.14 Departures from the brackets, which the statute permits if reasons are given, have been rare, and the appellate courts have made clear that the discretion is a narrow one.

Delaney and the force of law

The constitutional challenge came from a woman who had fractured her ankle on a defective footpath in Waterford in April 2019. She applied to the Board in June 2019, when the Book of Quantum valued her injury at up to €34,000, and was assessed in May 2021, by which time the Guidelines placed it at €3,000. She argued that the Oireachtas had impermissibly delegated the making of law to the Judicial Council, that requiring judges to adopt guidelines they would later apply compromised their independence, and that she had a vested right to be assessed under the rules in force when she applied. The Supreme Court delivered judgment on 9 April 2024. By six to one it held that the Guidelines had the force of law, not because the Judicial Council had adopted them but because the Oireachtas had itself given them effect through the 2021 Act. By four to three it held that section 7(2)(g) of the 2019 Act, which required the Council to adopt them, was unconstitutional as an intrusion on judicial independence, and by the same margin it held that Ms Delaney had no vested right to the Book of Quantum. The majority described the Guidelines as hard law from which a court may depart only where there is no reasonable proportion between the bracket and the award the judge would otherwise make, and only for reasons stated in the judgment.15

Delaney settled the status of the 2021 Guidelines but unsettled the machinery for changing them. If the Council could not constitutionally be required to adopt guidelines, any amendment would need the Oireachtas to act. The Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 duly inserted a requirement that a draft amendment be laid before each House and approved by resolution before the Council adopts it.16

The review that did not happen

The Committee completed its first statutory review in March 2024 and the Board of the Judicial Council published draft amended Guidelines in December 2024. The draft proposed an across the board increase of 16.7 per cent, calculated from consumer price inflation since 2021, which would have raised the maximum for catastrophic injuries to €642,000, together with revised guidance on multiple injuries drawn from the case law described above. The full Council considered the draft on 31 January 2025 and it was submitted to the Minister for Justice on 4 February 2025.17 In July 2025 the Minister announced that he would not bring a resolution before the Oireachtas, citing the effect on insurance premiums, the advice of the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council, and a concern that the Board would be left assessing claims under one set of figures while the courts awarded under another. The draft was laid before the Houses in September 2025 without a motion to approve it.18

The courts have declined to apply the increase by other means. In Somers v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána in May 2025, O'Higgins J refused to reflect the proposed uplift in an award, holding that a draft which had not been approved had not even the status of soft law, and in Higgins v Coleman in December 2025 the same judge confirmed that the 2021 figures continue to govern while accepting that a court may bear in mind, in a general way, that the Judicial Council itself regards them as out of date.19 The Government's answer is the General Scheme of the Judicial Council (Amendment) Bill 2026, published in January 2026, which would lengthen the review cycle from three years to five, oblige the Committee to consult the Board and to publish research comparing Irish awards with those abroad, and give the Council a mechanism to reconsider a draft the Oireachtas declines to approve. The Oireachtas Justice Committee completed its scrutiny in February 2026 and the Bill itself is being prepared. Until it passes and a new draft goes through the process, the Guidelines adopted in March 2021 remain the law.20

The Board twenty years on

The Board has changed too. The Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 renamed it with effect from 14 December 2023, and it now trades as the Injuries Resolution Board. The Act allowed it to offer mediation, which was rolled out across motor, employer and public liability claims during 2024, to assess claims for purely psychological injury, which it had previously had to release, and to hold a claim beyond the usual nine months where the prognosis is not yet clear.21 Its figures for 2024 show the effect of the Guidelines. The Board received 20,837 applications, three per cent more than in 2023 but a third fewer than in 2019, and the awards it made were 39 per cent lower in value than in 2019. Half of its assessments were accepted, up from 48 per cent the year before and back to the level that prevailed before the Guidelines arrived. For liability claims under €150,000 the average compensation received through the Board and through litigation was virtually identical, but the legal fees averaged €597 in the first case and €24,786 in the second, and the claim took a little over two years to resolve through the Board against almost six years through the courts.22

Those figures explain why the Board matters more now than it did under the Book of Quantum. When the Book was a loose guide and the courts applied it loosely, a claimant who rejected an assessment could reasonably hope to do better before a judge, and about half of them did reject it. Now that the Board and the courts apply the same brackets, with the same method for multiple injuries and the same narrow scope for departure, a rejection rarely improves the general damages, and a claimant who rejects an assessment and then fails to recover more than it in court is exposed on costs under section 51A of the 2003 Act.23 The argument has moved from the size of the award to its components, to the bracket into which the injury falls, to which injury is dominant and how the uplift is calculated, and to the special damages, which the Guidelines do not touch.

What it means in practice

For anyone bringing or defending a personal injuries claim today, three things follow. The first is that the value of an injury is now largely a matter of classification rather than persuasion, and the medical evidence has to be directed at the questions the Guidelines ask, which are the nature of the injury, its severity, the length of recovery and any lasting effect. The second is that the Board's assessment deserves to be taken seriously, because the court will be applying the same document, and the decision to reject it should rest on an identifiable error in the bracket, the uplift or the special damages rather than on hope. The third is that the figures in force are those of 2021, that they are worth less in real terms every year, and that the courts have said they cannot correct for that until the Oireachtas does. The Book of Quantum was a description of what had been paid. The Guidelines are an instruction as to what is to be paid. Whether the instruction is updated, and by whom, is the question the next two years will decide.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It states the law as the author understands it in October 2026. Any reference to figures is by reference to the Book of Quantum and the Personal Injuries Guidelines published under statute, and every claim depends on its own facts and medical evidence.

Notes

  1. Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (No. 46 of 2003); Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (Commencement) (No. 2) Order 2004 (S.I. No. 438 of 2004). ↩
  2. Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, sections 20 and 22, as originally enacted. ↩
  3. Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, section 22, as originally enacted. ↩
  4. Personal Injuries Assessment Board, Book of Quantum (June 2004; revised edition October 2016). ↩
  5. Payne v Nugent [2015] IECA 268; Nolan v Wirenski [2016] IECA 56; Shannon v O'Sullivan [2016] IECA 93. ↩
  6. Sinnott v Quinnsworth Ltd [1984] ILRM 523; Yang Yun v Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland [2009] IEHC 318; Morrissey v Health Service Executive [2020] IESC 6. ↩
  7. Personal Injuries Commission, Second and Final Report (July 2018), chaired by Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns; First Report (December 2017). ↩
  8. Judicial Council Act 2019, sections 7, 18, 90 and 99. ↩
  9. Personal Injuries Guidelines Committee, Report to the Board of the Judicial Council (December 2020). ↩
  10. Judicial Council, Personal Injuries Guidelines (adopted 6 March 2021); Family Leave and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2021, section 30; the Guidelines came into operation on 24 April 2021. ↩
  11. Meehan v Shawcove Ltd [2022] IECA 208 (Noonan J). ↩
  12. Lipinski (a minor) v Whelan [2022] IEHC 452 (Coffey J); McHugh v Ferol [2023] IEHC 132 (Murphy J). ↩
  13. Zaganczyk v John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company [2023] IECA 223 (Noonan J). ↩
  14. Wolfe v Personal Injuries Assessment Board [2023] IECA 245. ↩
  15. Delaney v Personal Injuries Assessment Board, Judicial Council, Ireland and the Attorney General [2024] IESC 10 (9 April 2024). ↩
  16. Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024, amending section 7 of the Judicial Council Act 2019. ↩
  17. Judicial Council, Personal Injuries Guidelines Committee, review completed 5 March 2024; draft amended Guidelines published 11 December 2024 and submitted to the Minister for Justice on 4 February 2025. ↩
  18. RTÉ News, 16.7% personal injury award increase will not go ahead, 9 July 2025; Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, Report on Pre-Legislative Scrutiny of the General Scheme of the Judicial Council (Amendment) Bill (February 2026), page 3. ↩
  19. Somers v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána (High Court, O'Higgins J, 12 May 2025); Higgins v Coleman [2025] IEHC 757 (O'Higgins J, 15 December 2025). ↩
  20. General Scheme of the Judicial Council (Amendment) Bill 2026 (published 21 January 2026); Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, Report on Pre-Legislative Scrutiny (February 2026). ↩
  21. Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 (No. 42 of 2022), section 2 and Part 3; the change of name took effect on 14 December 2023. ↩
  22. Injuries Resolution Board, Annual Report 2024 (published 9 July 2025). ↩
  23. Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, section 51A, inserted by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Act 2007 and amended by the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022. ↩
Talk to us about this

This site uses only the cookies and local storage needed for it to work. It sets no advertising or tracking cookies. Cookie policy