€16.5k Claim Leads to €50k Bill: Judge Slams Legal Costs

High Court Judge Condemns ‘Injustice’ of Legal Costs in Minor Injury Claims

A High Court judge has delivered a trenchant critique of the Irish legal system, declaring that a woman who pursued a legitimate, albeit unsuccessful, personal injury claim has had an “injustice inflicted on her” by a costs regime that could see her facing a bill of more than €50,000 for a dispute worth a fraction of that amount. The comments have reignited the debate surrounding access to justice and the crippling financial risks faced by ordinary citizens who turn to the courts.

In a judgment dismissing an appeal over a minor road traffic accident, Mr Justice Michael Twomey made a series of powerful observations about the disproportionality of legal costs in civil litigation. He expressed profound concern that the legal framework, intended to deliver justice, was instead creating devastating financial consequences for individuals involved in relatively modest disputes.

“Instead of justice being administered to Ms Putniene, in this court’s view, she has had an injustice inflicted on her,” Mr Justice Twomey stated in his written judgment. “This is because resolving her bona fide claim over a minor car accident, which could happen to anyone in this country, is likely to cost her several times the value of her claim.” He added starkly: “In this court’s view, it cannot amount to true justice, for the resolution of a claim to cost multiples of its value.”

A ‘He Says/She Says’ Collision

The case, *Putniene v McDonald*, centred on a collision in County Tipperary in July 2021. The plaintiff, Ms Putniene, was driving her car behind a tractor and trailer, with the defendant’s lorry travelling behind her. The accounts of what happened next were starkly different, creating what the judge described as a “classic case of he says/she says” with no independent witnesses to corroborate either version.

Ms Putniene alleged that the tractor began to “zig-zag” after pulling onto the hard shoulder, causing her to brake suddenly. This, she claimed, resulted in the defendant’s lorry colliding with the rear of her vehicle. She insisted she had not attempted to overtake the tractor, as she was aware it was not permitted on that stretch of road.

The defendant, Mr McDonald, presented a conflicting narrative. He contended that when the tractor moved onto the hard shoulder, Ms Putniene pulled out to overtake it, crossing a continuous white line into the path of oncoming traffic. According to his evidence, she was forced to brake sharply and swerve back into her lane, leaving him with no time to avoid the impact.

The claim for soft tissue injuries was initially heard and dismissed in the Circuit Court. Ms Putniene subsequently appealed that decision to the High Court.

Upholding the Law, Questioning the Consequences

In his High Court ruling, Mr Justice Twomey affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision. He noted that the burden of proof rested solely on the plaintiff to establish her version of events on the balance of probabilities. The defendant, he clarified, had no onus to prove his account was correct.

The judge found that certain aspects of the plaintiff’s evidence undermined her credibility. He agreed with the lower court’s assessment that the location of the damage to the left-hand side of her car, coupled with what he termed her “illogical” position regarding the visibility of the tractor, cast doubt on her recollection. On that basis, the court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the appeal.

However, having dispensed with the legal facts of the case, Mr Justice Twomey turned his attention to the wider implications, particularly the financial fallout for the plaintiff. He highlighted the well-established legal principle that “costs follow the event,” meaning the losing party is typically ordered to pay the winning party’s legal expenses. In this instance, having lost in both the Circuit Court and the High Court, Ms Putniene now faces the daunting prospect of paying the defendant’s legal costs for both hearings, in addition to her own. The judge estimated this total liability could be €50,000 or more, for a claim originally valued at approximately €16,500.

A Systemic Flaw in Need of Reform

Mr Justice Twomey argued that this outcome exposed a fundamental flaw in the civil justice system. He attributed the problem to a combination of low monetary thresholds for cases to be heard in the higher courts and a structural shift that has seen fewer cases resolved in the more affordable District and Circuit Courts.

“Consideration might be given to ensuring that, as in the criminal division of the High Court, only serious cases are tried in the civil division of the High Court,” he suggested. “In this way, minor cases (whether in value or importance) would be heard in more affordable courts, rather than in the prohibitively expensive High Court.”

Drawing on the recent Supreme Court decision in *Delaney v The Personal Injuries Board*, which emphasised the importance of proportionality in personal injury awards, Mr Justice Twomey argued that this principle must also extend to the costs of litigation. True proportionality, he contended, means that the cost of resolving a dispute should bear a reasonable relationship to its value.

He posited that a fairer system would be one where the potential costs a litigant might face are a predictable proportion of the claim’s value, rather than an open-ended and potentially ruinous figure. The judgment, while legally binding only on the parties involved, serves as a powerful commentary from the bench on the urgent need for reform to make justice more accessible and affordable for the average citizen.