When someone suffers a scarring injury, the impact is not just the pain incurred but also the emotional impact and this is even more so if the scarring is on a visible part of the body, such as facial. Like all cases taken to court for compensation, the court will look at several factors in assessing the damage. Whether the scarring is permanent is a relevant factor. The location of the scarring is important, so a scarring on the back or an area normally hidden by clothes will not attach as much damages as a scar on the face or hands. However, a court will consider, that while a scarring on the person's back is out of sight, such visibility can be noticeable and unsettling in a swimsuit, for example, and this might cause a person to drop such sports because the scar is so visible. The severity of the scarring and whether the scars are likely to clear in time or be a permanent feature is also an important factor in determining the level of damages. Age can be factored in as too the gender of the injured person. The work of the injured person is also factored in especially where the scarring is visible. Proving the Injury This involves ideally having evidence of how the injury occurred and preferably supported with witnesses. It is important that you record when the accident occurred and the circumstances of it. Did you immediately go for medical assistance? Where and whom did you see? Were you referred to a skin specialist, again whom and when? What treatment or surgery did you receive? If liability is contested, you will have to prove that the other party was liable for the scarring. Here you solicitor will assist you in the steps to be taken. If liability is not in dispute, you still need to show the court how much you have suffered. Here you will need an expert witness who will have to examine you and will give the court their expert opinion on the damage, the seriousness of it and whether it is permanent. Time Limits Do not delay in seeking legal advice as there is a two-year limit in starting litigation for personal injury cases. There are some exceptions to this, and your solicitor will advise you. But do not delay as, once outside the time limits, it is extremely difficult to reverse that, and you might lose your case and still suffer some costs.

A case came before the High Court where an adoption order was sought for a teenage girl despite the lack of consent of the girl’s natural parents. The teenager, ‘L’ was born in 2007 and with the consent of her natural parents had been in care since her birth. Since the age of three she was with her current family. L’s natural parents have had difficulties in their lives and their participation in her life has been limited to supervised visits. Her father who was also adopted had a negative view of Child and Family Agency due to his own personal experiences. The applicant to the court was the Child and Family Agency, Tusla and the second named applicant for the adoption of L but without the consent of her birth parents. The judge, Ms Justice Jackson considered the law under the Adoption Act, 2010, as amended and case law. Section 54 (2A) (a) which requires that it must be satisfied that for a continuous period of not less than 36 months immediately preceding the time of the making of the application, the parents of the child to whom the declaration under s.53(1) relates have failed in their duty towards the child to such extent that the safety or welfare of the child is likely to be prejudicially affected. The provisions of the Act were disputed by the natural parents of L who told the court that they did not abdicate their responsibility for L and that they always maintained contact with her. The judge also considered under the Act whether there was a reasonable prospect that L’s natural parents would be able to care for her. Here the court found guidance in the case of Re B [2023] IESC 12. This case said: ‘that abandonment does not necessarily mean or imply abandonment in the sense of the physical abandonment of a child (although, of course, it could do so). The subsection is rather directed at the question of the abandonment of parental rights vis-a vis the child.” The judge took into consideration the proportionality of making such an adoption order for L in accordance with the legislation and the case of Re B. This recognised that the child’s welfare is of central importance. The judge noted: ‘Adoption is rather a question of status which has lifetime consequences going well beyond the issue of care during the minority of the child. The making of an adoption order reflects the fact that a new family relationship has been created and this is one which is underpinned and supported by the State and its legal system.” The High Court judge found that the case before her was on similar terms as the case in Re: B on proportionality and that authorising of an adoption order in respect of L was proportionate. The judge found that the natural parents’ acceptance of her fosters’ parents’ positive role in L’s life as a good sign and she encouraged L to maintain contact with her natural parents and in so doing the judge granted the order of adoption. Child and Family Agency & The Adoption Authority of Ireland & Ors [2024] IEHC 678.

We are in the season of high winds and those with trees on their land could have damage claims against them where the trees or branches fall onto a neighbour’s land or obstruct a public pathway or road. The governing law here is the Roads Act, 1993, section 70 which places the responsibility on the landowner to ensure the trees are safe and do not cause damage to others. S.70 (i) (a) of the Act states: 70.—(1) (a) The owner or occupier of any structure and the owner or occupier of any land on which a structure is situated shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the structure or the use of the structure is not a hazard or potential hazard to persons using a public road and that it does not obstruct or interfere with the safe use of a public road or the maintenance of a public road. The section has interesting words in this section in ‘all reasonable steps’ so it is not an absolute rule and there is some flexibility. It would appear from this that if a person with trees on their property is fastidious in maintaining the trees, then through storm damage they may not be liable. If the damage is done to a neighbour that also has trees that may not be such an issue. But if the neighbour does not have trees and their property is damaged then it gets more complicated depending on the damage. Storm damage is regarded as a natural event but poorly maintained or diseased trees on lands may not escape under liability. Property owners living in suburbs with hedges hanging out over their property obstructing footpaths are liable for any injury caused to pedestrians or children passing by. In non-stormy weather conditions, liability for fallen trees is covered by the legislation so poorly maintained trees will be the responsibility of the property owner. Property owners with trees on their land are best advised to ensure the trees are well maintained. Dead trees should be removed as these are most vulnerable in stormy conditions and if in doubt speak to your solicitor.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

The Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 is the legislation that employers must comply with to safeguard their workers in the workplace. The Act is very explicit in setting out the duties of the employer and these are set out in section 8 as follows: (a) managing and conducting work activities in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety, health, and welfare at work of his or her employees; (b) managing and conducting work activities in such a way as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any improper conduct or behaviour likely to put the safety, health, or welfare at work of his or her employees at risk; (c) as regards the place of work concerned, ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable— (i) the design, provision, and maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risk to health, (ii) the design, provision, and maintenance of safe means of access to and egress from it, and (iii) the design, provision and maintenance of plant and machinery or any other articles that are safe and without risk to health; (d) ensuring, so far as it is reasonably practicable, the safety and the prevention of risk to health at work of his or her employees relating to the use of any article or substance or the exposure to noise, vibration or ionising or other radiations or any other physical agent; (e) providing systems of work that are planned, organised, performed, maintained, and revised as appropriate so as to be, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risk to health; (f) providing and maintaining facilities and arrangements for the welfare of his or her employees at work; (g) providing the information, instruction, training, and supervision necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety, health, and welfare at work of his or her employees; (h) determining and implementing the safety, health and welfare measures necessary for the protection of the safety, health and welfare of his or her employees when identifying hazards and carrying out a risk assessment under section 19 or when preparing a safety statement under section 20 and ensuring that the measures take account of changing circumstances and the general principles of prevention specified in Schedule 3 ; (i) having regard to the general principles of prevention in Schedule 3, where risks cannot be eliminated or adequately controlled or in such circumstances as may be prescribed, providing and maintaining such suitable protective clothing and equipment as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of his or her employees; (j) preparing and revising, as appropriate, adequate plans and procedures to be followed and measures to be taken in the case of an emergency or serious and imminent danger; (k) reporting accidents and dangerous occurrences, as may be prescribed, to the Authority or to a person prescribed under section 33 , as appropriate, and (l) obtaining, where necessary, the services of a competent person (whether under a contract of employment or otherwise) for the purpose of ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety, health, and welfare at work of his or her employees. This is a mighty list of responsibilities! Personal injury claims can be made by staff as well as customers or visitors to the workplace. It is for this reason that employers must ensure that the places their staff work in or visitors come need to comply with the legislation. Insurance Insurance premiums will rise because of a personal injury claim so this alone should be an incentive for businesses to be compliant. If the business is compliant with the Health and Safety legislation, then it is a shield against personal injury claims. We read in the media the increasing costs of insurance and where some businesses have had to close because of the rising cost of cover. The best defence to such legal actions is compliance with the legal obligations of employers in workplace health and safety. Risk Assessment Identifying potential hazards in the workplace is key to ensuring against claims. Employers are required to implement suitable protective and preventive measures to control risks. Be sure to engage a qualified risk assessor to carry out the work of risk assessment. Governing Body The Health Safety Authority (HSA) is responsible for regulating and overseeing workplace safety and health, which includes providing guidance and information to employers and employees, conducting inspections and investigations, and taking enforcement actions when necessary to ensure compliance with the legislation. A non-compliant employer can face serious consequences, including enforcement notices, fines, and potentially imprisonment in the most serious cases. The HSA can issue improvement or prohibition notices requiring immediate action to rectify non-compliance. If in doubt on your obligations as an employer, contact your solicitor for advice.

The plaintiff, a personal trainer, claimed that he suffered from claustrophobia as a result of an incident in June 2021 where he had been trapped in a lift. He claimed that he could no longer tolerate confined spaces and he feared that he would never to able to fly again. In the course of the trial, photographs were produced showing the plaintiff striking a muscular pose in a one-person sauna following the lift incident together with photos showing he had flown to Rome on a visit. His Hon. Judge Shannon said he had to take into account the photographic evidence in considering damages. While the judge found the plaintiff to be a genuine witness and accepted that he suffered from nightmares and panic attacks, the judge nonetheless could not ignore the photographic evidence of the plaintiff coping in the confined space of a single-use sauna and his evident ability to cope also with air travel. Counsel for the defendant told the court that a few days following his return flight from Rome, that he failed to tell a doctor at a medical examination about his flying activities. Previously, the court was informed that the plaintiff had been offered €15,000 in settlement but he had declined. In assessing the damage suffered, the judge awarded the plaintiff €8,250 plus expenses of €2,394. Counsel for the defendant asked the judge to award costs on the District Court scale as the amount awarded fell within the District Court jurisdiction. The judge agreed and so ruled. The defendant had conceded that the plaintiff had been trapped in a lift at his apartment block residence until a neighbor heard his cries for help and had called the emergency services. The court was asked to assess the damages only as the defendant had conceded fault in the case. Robert Smith v Infinity Lifts Ltd Circuit Court (His Hon Judge Geoffrey Shannon) 21 November 2024.

It falls to company directors to ensure the proper running of a company. Thus, it follows that improper actions by directors can result in sanctions against directors themselves. There aren’t many cases that come before the High Court on directors’ liability, but recent caselaw illustrates how serious the courts view improper conduct by directors. Improper conduct can take many forms: disrespecting the interests of shareholders, disrespecting minority shareholders rights, conflicts of interests among board members where decisions could impact negatively on the company, not obeying a court order and more. The Companies Act, 2014 – Exposure of Directors The Act sets out the duties and obligations of directors. Failure to follow these can result in exposing directors to categories of penalties ranging from minor to major. There are four categories listed in the Act for sanctioning directors. Category 1 offences can result in imprisonment for up to 10 years and/or a fine of up to €500,000 on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction imprisonment for not more than 12 months and/or a fine not exceeding €5,000. Category 2 offences can result in imprisonment of up to 5 years and/or a fine of up to €50,000 on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction imprisonment for up to 12 months and/or a fine not exceeding €5,000. Category 3 offences are summary offences only and can result in imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine not exceeding €5,000. Category 4 offences are summary offences only and can result in a fine not exceeding €5,000. The courts take breaches by company directors very seriously and in some instances, convictions can result in an order of Attachment. This can be against an individual for contempt in refusing to carry out a court order and if they continue to be in contempt, they could be committed to prison. Attachment, Sequestration of Assets Attachment is an order to have a named individual arrested and brought before the court to answer the contempt, which has been alleged. Sequestration of Assets is where a sequestrator (court official) is appointed to take possession of all property and assets in the possession of a person judged to be in contempt of court. Conclusion The consequences are severe and rightly so for directors who abuse the law and put the company at risk. The company secretary has greater responsibilities under the 2014 Act and if he or she is in any doubt on how the company is being operated, early contact with the company solicitor is advised.

Before committing to work on your home, consult your solicitor on building regulations in your area. Failure to do so could result in penalties and in some cases the removal of the finished work. Planning Permission In some instances, planning permission will not be required, and your solicitor will advise you on when such exemptions arise. However, if planning permission is required, it is important that you comply with all necessary requirements otherwise the permission may well be void. Examples of development that require planning permission are: 1. Extensions that increase the overall size of your home by more than 400 square feet. 2. Loft conversions that alter the structure of the roof. 3. Any changes that affect the exterior appearance of your dwelling. Your solicitor will advise you on this. Procedure in Applying for Planning Permission Ideally engage an architect to draw up detailed plans that will be submitted to the local authority on your behalf. The plans must provide all details of the work to be undertaken. The length of time for decisions can vary with local authorities but your architect should be able to give you an estimate of the time. Building Regulations The architect draws up the plans in accordance with your instructions, but you will need an engineer to ensure the proposed renovation complies with (a) structural stability (b) Fire safety (c) Energy efficiency and (d) accessibility. Failure on any of these will result in possible fines or demolition of the work. Short cuts are to be avoided. Inspections of Work in Progress While the work is underway it will be subject to inspections by the building control officers of the local authority. Their function is to ensure the work is being carried out in compliance with the planning permission granted. Assuming that the inspectors find no issues on inspection, you will receive a certificate of completion. This is important and it is important to keep in a safe place as if selling the property later, it will be required.  The above is for straight forward home renovations, anything greater will require the involvement of your solicitor at an exploratory stage to discuss a planning application and likely agreement with your neighbours as to access, debris removal and possible noise issues.

The plaintiff and her husband made a late booking into the defendant’s caravan park in July 2018. They were given a longer than usual pitch which exceeded the length of their caravan’s electricity cable. The defendant, the owner of the caravan park gave them a black extension led to allow the plaintiff’s husband to connect the caravan to their service post. Her husband connected their orange cable to the post and extended it to their caravan using the defendant’s black extension lead. The following day, which was bright and sunny, the plaintiff tripped on the electricity cable while on her way back from filling her kettle at the service post and in the process breaking her arm and injuring a thumb. An engineer for the plaintiff gave evidence that the cable posed a tripping hazard when placed in a pedestrian area and at an excessive distance from a pitch. The plaintiff submitted that there was a duty of care owed by the defendant to minimise this risk by locating its service outlets which reduced the risk. It was claimed the hazard created a danger for the plaintiff. The High Court Judge, Mr Justice Coffey said that the case fell within the provisions of section 3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1995. This provision sets out the duty of care a proprietor has towards a visitor to a premises to ensure that a visitor does not suffer injury or damage by reason of a danger there. The judge looked at past cases on this subject. In Lavin v Dublin Airport Authority plc [2016] IECA 268, the court looked at the common law distinction between an ‘unusual danger’ and ‘usual’ danger. The latter could avoid a danger by taking reasonable care by the visitor. Another case the judge considered was White v William Doherty & S&K Kerry Limited [2019] IECA 295, here the Court of Appeal decided that an uneven surface on which a plaintiff lost her footing was in keeping with the ‘naturalistic settings’ one expects to find at a caravan site and that a visitor would not expect ‘pristine conditions’ and so would be expected to take reasonable care as to any tripping hazard arising therefrom. Mr Justice Coffey set out that no liability could arise under s.3 where as a matter of law, the risk complained of was a “usual danger” which on objective assessment is to be anticipated by the visitor, and where the risk can be avoided by the visitor taking reasonable care for their own safety. On the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff knew the approximate angle at which her cable ran from the services post to their caravan and knew that she could have avoided contact with same had she gone around the front of her caravan. Instead, the court noted that the plaintiff walked around her husband’s parked car and was not exposed to an open cable for 16m as suggested by her engineer. The court also noted that the plaintiff had stepped over the cable to fill her water without difficulty and would have had in her line of vision the orange cable while monitoring her kettle to ensure that it did not overflow and while turning off the tap. It was also observed by the judge that the plaintiff was wearing flip-flops, and this did not assist in stepping over a cable. The judge was satisfied that the electricity cable, whether hanging from the upright or lying on the ground, and whether on the path or in the grass in the immediate vicinity of the service post, could not as a matter of law be considered an unusual danger for the plaintiff and was a feature which one would expect to find at any caravan park. In conclusion the judge ruled that there was no breach of the duty of care provided by s.3 of the 1995 Act and dismissed the action. Scanlan v Michael McDonnell t/a The Woodlands Caravan and Camping Park [2024] IEHC 324.