Foilsiú
23970 (27 October 2022)
Ó Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Foilsithe
An t-eolas is déanaí
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Foilsithe
An t-eolas is déanaí
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
In the matter of an application under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of Appeal Tribunal
Name of appellant: [ ]
Application number: 23970
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of receipt of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The Tribunal awards the sum of €1,539,233.60 to the Appellant, together with €44,417.08 in respect of out-of-pocket expenses in relation to the case, and €95,000 to Mr. [ ].
Date of hearing: 23 October 2017, 30 August 2021 and 7 July 2022.
In attendance [ ]:
[ ], Appellant; [ ], Solicitor; [ ], Senior Counsel; [ ], Witness; [ ], Nursing Consultant.
Tribunal Members: Roderick Maguire B.L., Chair; Mema Byrne B.L.; Nora-Pat Stewart B.L.
1. On [ ], the Appellant was seriously injured as the result of [ ] with a person unknown to him when he was suddenly and without provocation or justification punched. As a result of the punch he fell to the ground hitting his head and sustaining an acquired brain injury. The Application was awarded €5,000 by the single member and an appeal was lodged in respect of the Appellant’s claim.
2. On 23 October 2017 an Appeal Tribunal was convened. The Tribunal heard evidence from a witness to the assault and [ ] and determined that further reports were required and that an urgent application in respect of wardship of the Appellant should be made to the High Court. The Tribunal made a finding that the application came within the provisions of the scheme, and an interim award in trust for the Appellant in the sum of €100,000.
3. The Tribunal reconvened on 30 August 2021. The Tribunal directed further reports be obtained and circulated to the Appellant’s legal team, and the appellant provided a note of the proceedings from [ ].
4. The Appellant was made a ward of court on [ ] with his committee being Mr. [ ] and Mr. [ ], his brother.
5. On 7 July 2022 the Tribunal reconvened to assess quantum of the Appellant’s claim. It was accepted at the outset of the hearing that the Appellant had been the victim of a crime of violence and that his application fell under the Scheme.
6. The Tribunal considered all papers submitted, including the additional submissions under cover of email dated [ ] and [ ].
7. While the application had not been made within the 3-month time limit provided for under the Scheme, it was accepted that circumstance existed in particular as a result of the acquired brain injury such as to justify extending the time limit for making the application by the Tribunal held on the [ ]. Accordingly it is accepted that the application falls within the terms of the Scheme.
8. The Tribunal had the benefit of a medical report by [ ], Consultant in Rehabilitation Medicine that concluded that the Appellant will require life-long support due to the difficulties he has communicating. As well as hearing from the Appellant himself, the Tribunal heard evidence from Mr [ ], the Appellant’s best friend and person who to date has assisted the Appellant since his injury. The Tribunal also heard evidence from [ ], Nursing Consultant.
9. Mr [ ] gave evidence that between [ ] and [ ] the Appellant’s mother was alive and the Appellant lived at home with his parents. The Tribunal heard that the Appellant’s father was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s when the incident took place, and some seven months after the incident the Appellant’s mother’s health deteriorated. She also required care and therefore was not fully in a position to care for the Appellant. Mr [ ] gave evidence that the Appellant’s brothers also lived at home and that Mr. [ ] used to call in and assist the Appellant in whatever way that he could.
10. The Appellant’s mother passed away in [ ] and the Appellant remained living in the family home in what was described as a very difficult period in the Appellant’s life due to disharmony between the Appellant and some of his siblings. Ultimately in [ ] a decision was taken that the Appellant should move to [ ], closer to Mr [ ], so that Mr [ ] would be in a position to provide further assistance to the Appellant in respect of his day-to-day care.
11. The Tribunal heard evidence that Mr [ ] daily routine with the Appellant was that he would call in in the morning, that he would prompt the Appellant to take action through telephone calls and texts throughout the day and that he would call again in the afternoon and/or evening in order to assist the Appellant with basic daily tasks. Mr [ ] gave evidence that when a small item or activity was not completed during the day this could cause grave upset to the Appellant and result in a downward spiralling of his mood, emotion and ability to complete other tasks throughout the day. Therefore, timetabling and completion of tasks was key to optimum care of the Appellant.
12. The Tribunal also had the benefit of three reports of [ ], Nursing Consultant. Ms [ ] also gave evidence at the appeal hearing. Ms [ ] gave evidence that she had examined the diaries of Mr [ ] who had been providing care for the Appellant and assessed the hours required to adequately care for the Appellant based on Mr [ ] diaries. It was submitted that the Appellant was in as good health as he could possibly be due to the excellent and unwavering care that had been provided by his friend Mr [ ].
13. [ ] initially assessed the Appellant as requiring 21 hours of care per week together with holiday support. [ ] later assessed the Appellant’s care needs at five hours per day (35 hours per week), two weeks holiday support together with 179 days of support hours.
14. The Tribunal commissioned a Care report by [ ] Care which initially recommended care at 2 hours per day (14 hours per week) together with a case management of 1 hour per month in respect of care for the Appellant. Having had the benefit of [ ] 2nd report, Prof. [ ] of [ ] Care prepared an addendum report dated [ ] which sets out a number of critiques of [ ] second report.
15. The report expressed surprise that the addendum report was not based on a reassessment given that the original report was over three and a half years old, particularly since Mr. [ ] moved to independent living in the meantime and that “the purpose of a nursing care report is to assess actual needs using a recognised nursing assessment model and to identify abilities and needs with a view towards maximising independence.” The report stated that given that the initial report of [ ] “recognised past care at largely 21 hours weekly, it is entirely contradictory to estimate that Mr. [ ] would need 35 hours a week in future should the current support be removed, with an additional 179 hours of additional support hours. The original report had congruency in terms of retrospective care up until the point of assessment and future care, the addendum does not.” [ ] stated that there was no objective dependency tool that had been utilised, and “the addendum report appears either highly inflated or the initial report entirely inaccurate.” In his opinion, the former was more likely. He was of the opinion that five hours of daily support was not required and that “the proposed five hours daily are contradictory to a model of nursing that moves someone towards independence and does not appear to be based upon an actual assessment, including since Mr. [ ] has moved to independent living.” Prof. [ ] believed that an additional 48 hours of unanticipated needs were warranted but not 179 hours. He stated that there was nothing in the addendum report that would account for a 66% increase in care hours and that the initial assessment should have captured all care hours entirely. He cited in particular the recommendation of Prof. [ ] that the Appellant ‘can live in the community independently with some support’ which was evidenced by his transition to his current living situation, and contrary to the recommendation that he would move into a home with other people.
16. In conclusion, Prof. [ ] of [ ] Care updated his recommendations to include 3 hours daily for 6 months to ease his transition if he wanted to have his support contribution replaced by a key support worker, with 2 hours daily thereafter. He also recommended 52 additional support hours annually for unanticipated needs. Prof. [ ] based his care rates on HSE Home Care Attendant rates and set out a table of what he suggested were the computations of past care, and annual future care costs to include additional support and case management.
17. Ms [ ] submitted a 3rd and final report dated [ ]. It noted that since her last assessment the Appellant had moved from [ ] to [ ] on [ ], and was living near [ ] and his wife and family. It outlined that for her second report, [ ] was not asked to undertake a further assessment of the Appellant but was only asked to consider the possibility of Mr. [ ] not being in a position to assist the Appellant and give an opinion on the additional support hours that would be required in such circumstances. For this third report, she undertook a further assessment of the Appellant and responded to the report of Prof. [ ].
18. In the report, Ms. [ ] responded extensively to the critiques in the addendum report of Dr. [ ]. She stated that at the time of her addendum report, the Appellant was still living in [ ], contrary to what was said in Dr. [ ] report, and that she had used the Roper, Logan and Tierney “Model of Living” nursing framework to assess the Appellant’s needs. She highlighted that there had been no move towards independent living in relation to the Appellant and that he remained very dependent on Mr. [ ]. She stated that the Appellant’s “ ‘independence’ is only present because it is supported independence.” She stated that he requires very regular prompting and interaction each day, and that this is now done by Mr. [ ] in person often rather than by phone or text message, as they live so close. Mrs. [ ] now also assists in the place of Mr. [ ] brothers who had a role for 2-3 hours a week when the Appellant lived in [ ].
19. She indicated that she was recommending that if Mr. [ ] intended to continue his role as friend and advocate (and the Tribunal notes that Mr. [ ] is now also acting in the role as one of two on the committee to the Appellant in his wardship) she recommended that the Appellant should be provided with 21 hours of external support per week, with 48 hours per annum for unanticipated events. She highlighted that she had stated that in her opinion it may be that the Appellant will go on to develop greater care needs as he aged and the level of current support recommended may not be sufficient. She denied that any of her recommendations were inflated and stated how she had come to her conclusions. She stated that Mr. [ ] had used his considerable professional expertise to institute a “comprehensive rehabilitation programme” to assist him to achieve the best quality of life that he can. She recommended that the care package outlined by her was necessary to maintain the Appellant’s optimal functioning. She stated that the different hours in her recommendations were for scenarios where Mr. [ ] was carrying out his current role and where he was not. In the absence of supports from Mr. [ ], she had cautioned that a community living situation might need to be considered. She also stated that the idea that the Appellant could transition to a form of lesser care in six months, as suggested by Dr. [ ], was unrealistic, and that the level of independence that the Appellant has achieved was because of the custom-developed, one-to-one rehabilitation programmes that have been assessed, implemented, reviewed, updated and maintained for him by Mr. [ ].
20. She concluded that a package of care that was required was 35 hours per week, with a further annual bank of 179 hours. This was on the basis of the current care being offered by Mr. [ ]. This level of care may not be sufficient if there is a deterioration in Mr. [ ] state.
21. The Appellant commissioned [ ] Actuaries to prepare an actuarial report based on Ms [ ] First report. This report was dated [ ] and calculated the current costs of the Appellant’s future care requirements. It calculated his past care costs and future case management for life. It also calculated the past and future loss of earnings of the Appellant on the basis of a regular life expectancy, and the Appellant being in full time employment as a [ ] Operative.
22. A Second Actuarial report was submitted based on Ms [ ] Second Report. This report was dated [ ]. It made provisions for cost of care into the future based on the assumption that he could invest an average rate of 1.5% more than the rate of increase to his income had he not been injured, and that will occur in his future non-care costs, and at a rate of 1% more than his care costs. His past and future loss on the basis of having worked as a [ ] operative was calculated, and his care costs on the basis of past care as outlined by [ ] in her [ ] report and future care as set out in her [ ] report. The figures on the basis of Ms. [ ] report were calculated for the possibility of both care at home or community living. The calculation was informed by the estimation of life expectancy by Dr. [ ] in [ ].
23. A final supplemental actuarial report was submitted by letter dated [ ], based on the final report of [ ]. A third scenario which would involve the Appellant requiring all his care from a private source should Mr [ ] become unavailable to assist in the Appellant’s care in any way was costed in the final actuarial report.
24. The Tribunal commissioned [ ] to prepare actuarial reports in respect of the Appellant’s care based upon the care reports provided by [ ] Care.
25. Additional submissions were received from the Appellant after the hearing addressing a number of matters that the Tribunal sought clarification on, including loss of earnings, retrospective care and additional legal costs.
26. The Appellant made a claim in respect of past loss of earnings. [ ] Limited, Consulting Actuaries prepared a report for the Tribunal Secretariat. That report provides that the Appellant would have earned €583 gross per week between the date of the incident and the date of the report which is the [ ]. However, it provides for no earnings between [ ] to [ ] as a result of the recession.
27. [ ] assess the net after-tax sum of loss of earnings on this basis to be €377,625. This allows for full deduction for tax, PRSI and USC. [ ] calculate his social welfare received during that period as €181,145. This provides for a net past loss of earnings claim of €196,480 up to [ ].
28. The Appellant submitted to the Tribunal that the claim as calculated by [ ] does not provide for any career progression during that period and it also provides for no income during a four-year period when the Appellant’s vocational assessor submitted that it was likely he would have retained some employment. The Appellant criticised [ ] report also on the basis that while it provides for no income for a four-year period it deducts the social welfare received in respect of that four years from the total sum.
29. The Appellant in additional submissions dated [ ] stated that here was no evidence that the Appellant would have been out of work during the four-year period from [ ] to [ ].
30. The Appellant was working as a [ ] at the time of the incident. It was submitted on the Appellant’s behalf that he would have gone from strength to strength in the [ ] industry and would have been promoted over the years earning a good salary, and that the success of various siblings in his family supported this submission.
31. The evidence submitted shows that the Appellant left school at [ ] and held down various jobs for various periods of time over the years. He did not complete an apprenticeship which he started and had only worked in the job that he was working in for 12 weeks prior to the incident according to the letter from the department of Social and Family Affairs dated [ ]. He was only working for 13 weeks in [ ] up to his injury in May, indicating that he was unemployed for a period of time not long before his injury, at a time when general construction operatives were in demand.
32. The Tribunal considered in particular the reports of [ ] dated [ ] and [ ]. It is noted in the first of those reports that it would have been unlikely that the Appellant would have been able to sustain the type of earnings he had in [ ] throughout the intervening years, in particular between [ ] and [ ].
33. The Tribunal considers that this is evidence on which it can conclude that it is likely that the Appellant would have been underemployed during this period.
34. The Tribunal finds that the projected likely career path outlined by [ ], that the Appellant would have continued to a senior role in the company and would have weathered the recession, is overly optimistic given the Appellant career performance prior to the incident.
35. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant may or may not have continued in that role, and would likely have been underemployed or unemployed for periods during the recession. The Tribunal finds that the notion that he would have not worked at all for 4 years is however overly pessimistic. In the Tribunal’s view, the Appellant was likely to have matured and settled into a steady career in or about [ ] years of age but suffered from underemployment from [ ] and thereafter picked up a mid- ranking job as he would not have had the continuous work experience of other people his age in the industry.
36. In respect of the past loss of earnings claim the Tribunal finds that the Appellant would have continued to earn the salary that he was earning from [ ] through to [ ] at which time he may have been laid off. The Tribunal awards a headline additional sum of €60,000 for the period [ ] through to the period of [ ] to account for the probability that he would not have been working full-time during that period and provides for his salary to have resumed again between [ ] through to the present at the level calculated by [ ].
37. This gives a headline figure of € 256,480 in past loss of earnings.
38. None of the actuarial reports made a deduction for past contingencies on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Reddy v. Bates [1983] IR 141, and subsequent caselaw.
39. The Appellant was so young when he was injured that he had at that time not established a steady work pattern that would be a reliable predictor of future performance in the workforce. In light of the range of matters that were set out by Irvine J. (as she then was) in Walsh v Tesco Ireland Limited [2017] IECA 64 and quoted with approval in the recently by Noonan J. in Twomey v. Jeral Ltd. & Ors [2022] IECA 177 at 58 et seq., which show the various matters that may disrupt a lifetime of earning, the Tribunal finds that there should be a 20% deduction in line with the principles outlined in Reddy v. Bates and subsequent caselaw to reflect the uncertainty in the Appellant’s work prospects and the other factors outlined in the caselaw. The Tribunal notes and accepts in particular the statement in the report of [ ] dated [ ] that a career in construction would be one of those most affected by downturns and recessions over the years.
40. This gives a total for past loss of earnings of €205,184.
41. The Appellant left school early and from leaving school to the date of the incident had not carved out any particular career path for himself. As noted above, his employment record shows that he worked many jobs and was unemployed for many weeks of the year at a time when there was plenty of employment opportunity. The Appellant did not finish the apprenticeship that he had commenced and had recently commenced a new role with [ ] where he was self-employed, working on [ ] on the [ ] project on [ ], after a period of apparent unemployment.
42. In respect of future loss of earnings [ ] calculate the Appellant’s loss at €496 per week from the date of the report to the age of 68 resulting in a sum of €586,272.
43. [ ] deducted €28,800 from the future loss of earnings in respect of normal living expenses bringing the sum to €557,472. The report of [ ] dated [ ] states that no contingency deduction was made in relation to this calculation and notes that the industry in which the Appellant worked would be one of the most affected by downturns, recessions and similar vagaries.
44. The Appellant submitted a report from [ ] Actuaries, calculating that the future loss of earnings was €673,890. In this calculation, [ ] Actuaries used the current earnings in CSO for [ ] workers and extrapolated that he would have earned at that level. It made no allowance for any difficulty in employment that he may have encountered or that as a [ ] operative he may have had to stop working earlier than other workers, in advance of reaching 68.
45. It was urged on the Tribunal at the hearing that the fact that the actuaries had not increased the weekly earnings for the Appellant in this calculation should fully mitigate any proposed deduction for earlier retirement or any Reddy v. Bates deduction.
46. The Tribunal does not accept this submission. Calculating the Appellant’s future loss of earnings, the Tribunal finds that the basis of the calculation used by [ ] is preferable, using the current net figure of €496 per week, with the future loss of earnings €557,472.
47. The Tribunal finds that the use in that report of a flat wage for the Appellant balances out to a certain degree the potential that the Appellant may have had periods of unemployment.
48. However, the Tribunal makes a deduction for the reasons set out above in that the Appellant was injured at such an early stage in his life and for the other reasons set out in the caselaw in relation to other contingencies, again on the basis of matters that may have interrupted the Appellant’s earnings in any event and referenced in Walsh v Tesco Ireland Limited and Twomey v. Jeral Ltd. & Ors as set out above, at a rate of 20%, given the employment history of the Appellant and the industry that he worked in.
49. This gives a future loss of earnings figure of €445,977.60.
50. [ ] estimate the Appellant’s past care costs as per [ ] Care Consultancy at €185,417.
51. [ ] Actuaries estimated that the Appellant’s past care was valued at €291,842 up to [ ]. Detailed evidence and subsequent legal submissions in relation to the level of care provided to the Appellant by, in particular, [ ] were provided to the Tribunal.
52. The Tribunal finds that the Scheme allows for pecuniary loss. In this case there is no direct evidence that actual losses were sustained and/or care paid for. The Tribunal notes the urging of a more purposive approach on the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal is bound by the express terms of the Scheme. The Tribunal recognises the extraordinary assistance that Mr. [ ] in particular has given to the Appellant, and the benefit that Mr. [ ] professional expertise has had. It is undoubted that Mr. [ ] suffered pecuniary loss as a result of such assistance which is not readily estimable. There was no vouching in relation to the pecuniary loss that was suffered. If this service was not provided by Mr. [ ], the Tribunal accepts that there would have had to have been additional support services provided to the Appellant. However, the Appellant did not calculate a specific figure based on vouched expenses. In this instance, specifically on the evidence given, the Tribunal estimates the past care provided by Mr. [ ] at €95,000.
53. In calculating the future life expectancy of the Appellant, all parties relied on the estimate contained in the letter of Dr. [ ] dated [ ], expecting that the future life expectancy of the Appellant at that time, when he was [ ], would have been between 32.6 and 35.2 years.
54. [ ] estimate the Appellant’s future care costs at €401 per week for life (from [ ] Care’s Care Report which valued 1 year’s future care at €20,830) with a capitalised value of €552,578 and a further €3,072 as per [ ] Care for case management (on a once off basis) bringing the total to €555,650.
55. [ ] actuaries only made calculations based on the report of [ ]. She provided a second addendum report having reviewed the two reports of [ ] Nursing Consultant retained by the Tribunal in [ ], and the actuarial report of [ ] dated [ ].
56. [ ] estimated that the Appellant would require 35 hours per week in care and an additional bank of 179 support hours, together with two week’s holiday respite per annum. This was on the basis that the Appellant receives no ongoing support from Mr. [ ].
57. Her initial report dated [ ] had estimated that 21 hours per week were required (being 3 hours per day), together with additional recommendations regarding additional supports. She clarified in a subsequent report that this was on the basis that Mr. [ ] would continue to provide support, which he has said he wishes to do, as a friend, mentor and social companion.
58. In her subsequent report dated [ ], Ms. [ ] stated at section 2.2 that she was updating her recommendations on the basis that Mr. [ ] was no longer in the Appellant’s life. Given the recent move by the Appellant out of [ ] so that he could be beside Mr. [ ] (and thereby lost the external activities he engaged with in [ ] as set out in the report of Ms. [ ] dated [ ]), which was facilitated by Mr. [ ] who is a member of the committee of the ward of the Appellant recently appointed, and given Mr. [ ] stated desire to be in the life of the Appellant on an ongoing basis, the Tribunal does not find it likely that Mr. [ ] will not be a friend, mentor and social companion for the Appellant in the future. The Tribunal notes from the most recent report of Ms. [ ] that the support that Mr. [ ] provides to the Appellant now is even better than before, with more of it being face to face rather than on the phone (see section 2.2 of the report of [ ]). While three alternative scenarios were set out by the Appellant, including the possible costing of Community living without any contribution from any other quarter and all costs being borne by the Appellant himself, the Tribunal does not find that any of these scenarios are entirely appropriate.
59. The Tribunal finds that the support provided by Mr. [ ] is likely to continue, however it should be noted that much of this support is psychological and by way of friendship, companionship and support rather than the provision of facilities that incur a pecuniary loss.
60. The Tribunal notes that at present the Appellant has not applied for or availed of any care hours which the State / HSE and/or various charitable organisations may provide and assumes that he is entitled to at least some care from the State and/or a charitable organisation. When asked Ms [ ] was not able to give the Tribunal an estimate of the hours provided by the State to an individual who has been medically assessed as not being capable of looking after themselves and the Tribunal makes its calculation for care hours required on the basis that the Appellant would be entitled to access at least some care from the State, the Community and/or charitable organisations.
61. Noting this, and in particular the analysis in the most recent report of Ms. [ ] dated [ ], and set out at section 3.1 therein, together with the earlier report of [ ] of [ ], the Tribunal finds that the appropriate level of support to be paid for by the Tribunal to the Appellant is 2 hours of care per day and 1 hour case management per week as found by [ ] Care in the Addendum Report dated [ ], for the next 11 years.
62. The Tribunal notes that in the calculation of the annual costs projected by [ ] Care, the calculation by [ ] did not include the 52 additional support hours contained in the recommendation, which means that the annual cost recommended by [ ] Care was €22,182 rather than €20,830, or a weekly cost of €426.58 rather than €401. When the appropriate multiplier is applied to this (1,378 as contained in the [ ] report), the total figure for future care based on the [ ] Care report is €587,827.24 together with a one-off fee of €3,072.40 in relation to case management.
63. The Tribunal awards €220,000 (which is approximately 11/30 of the future care using the model set out in [ ] actuarial report of [ ]) for the care of the Appellant for the next 11 years.
64. In calculating the cost of such care, the Tribunal notes that there are discrepancies in the cost of care hours between the reports of the nursing consultants, but that the basic hourly rate is agreed at being €26 per hour. Insofar as there is a divergence in rates of care, the Tribunal notes that the rates of [ ] are based on the HSE Home Care Attendant rates as set out at para. 4.3 of his report of [ ] and the Tribunal relies on these rates.
65. The Tribunal accepts the likelihood set forward in the Addendum report of Ms. [ ] (dated [ ]) at section 2.2.9 that the Appellant is likely to require increased care in future as a consequence of his acquired brain injury. This was also contained in section 4.2.9 of her report dated [ ]. The Tribunal therefore believes that for approximately the following 19 years from [ ] (based on the letter of [ ] of Dr. [ ] in his assessment of the additional life expectancy of the Appellant and the mid-point of that range as adopted in the report of [ ] Actuaries for the Appellant) the Appellant will require additional supports. However the Tribunal is of the view that the level of support required for the final approximate 2/3rds of the Appellant’s life is in line with the level of support outlined in Ms [ ] Report dated [ ] and awards €570,000, which is approximately 19/30 of the figure calculated by [ ] Actuaries in [ ], based on Ms. [ ] [ ] care recommendations (not allowing for an annual case management fee).
66. Further the Tribunal acknowledges that Mr [ ] will continue to be in the Appellant’s life. The Tribunal awards a further €95,000 for potential pecuniary loss of Mr. [ ] or any other such person that may provide the service or similar services to the Appellant on an ad hoc basis by virtue of their friendship or similar relationship in the future.
Therefore, the Tribunal awards the following:
1. Past loss of earnings: €205,184
2. Future loss of earnings: €445,977.60
3. Costs of past care to Mr. [ ]: €95,000
4. Future care costs in relation to the care to be provided on an ad hoc basis by Mr [ ] or others and to be discharged by the Appellant: €95,000
5. Future care for the first 11 years: €220,000
6. A once off figure for case management: €3,072
7. Future care after 11 years at the increased level set out in Ms [ ] [ ] report: €570,000
Special damages:
The Appellant submitted vouchers in respect of €23,587.58. The Tribunal also awards the costs of the application for wardship as set out in the submission of [ ], being €13,449.50
The Tribunal subsequently received an estimate of €6000 plus VAT (being a total of €7,380) for the application seeking approval of the Award of the Tribunal, and the Tribunal awards this amount in addition.
The Special damages claim is accepted and awarded.
67. The Tribunal therefore awards the sum of €1,539,233.60 to the Appellant, together with €44,417.08 in respect of out-of-pocket expenses in relation to the case, and €95,000 to Mr. [ ].
Roderick Maguire, Mema Byrne, Nora-Pat Stewart
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
19 October 2022
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
In the matter of an application under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Addendum to the Decision of Appeal Tribunal
Name of appellant: [ ]
Application number: 23970
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of receipt of application: [ ]
Decision outcome: The Tribunal awards the sum of €1,539,233.60 to the Appellant, less the €100,000 already paid by way of an interim award, (being a balance of €1,439,233.60) together with the revised sum of €49,338.01 in respect of out-of-pocket expenses in relation to the case, and €95,000 to Mr. [ ].
Date of hearing: [ ], [ ] and [ ]
1. In its awards of [ ], the Tribunal did not explicitly provide for the interim amount of €100,000, which was awarded pending the final award being issued, to be deducted from the amount awarded. The Tribunal clarifies that this amount is to be deducted from the amount awarded to the Appellant.
2. Further, the Tribunal in its award did not consider the additional costs submitted by the Appellant on the day before the hearing and subsequent to the hearing in respect of the attendance of [ ] and the updated actuarial evidence. Having reviewed the vouching submitted, the Tribunal Awards all the expenses sought, save that the Tribunal does not award VAT on mileage claimed by [ ], which results in a deduction from the amount claimed of €80.13.
The Appellant submitted vouchers in respect of €28,588.64. The Tribunal therefore awards the amount of €28,508.51 for the reasons set out above. The Tribunal also awards the costs of the application for wardship as set out in the submission of [ ], being €13,449.50
The Tribunal received an estimate of €6,000 plus VAT (being a total of €7,380) for the application seeking approval of the Award of the Tribunal, and the Tribunal awards this amount in addition.
The Special damages claim is accepted and awarded at the above rate.
3. The Tribunal awards the sum of €1,539,233.60 to the Appellant, less the €100,000 already paid by way of an interim award, (being a balance of €1,439,233.60) together with the revised sum of €49,338.01 in respect of out-of-pocket expenses in relation to the case, and €95,000 to Mr. [ ].
Roderick Maguire, Mema Byrne, Nora-Pat Stewart
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
27 October 2022