About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 682
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Michael Twomey

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Michael Twomey opined: “Instead of justice being administered to Ms Putniene, in this court’s view, she has had an injustice inflicted on her. 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.”

Background

In July 2021, the plaintiff was driving in Co Tipperary. A tractor with an attached trailer was driving in front of her, and the defendant’s truck was behind her.

The tractor pulled in and continued to drive along the hard shoulder. The plaintiff alleged that she was aware that overtaking was not permitted on the stretch of road, and so she continued to drive in the single lane and did not attempt to overtake the tractor. The plaintiff alleged that the tractor “zig-zagged” and caused her to brake, with the result that the defendant crashed into her.

The defendant alleged that when the tractor began to drive in the hard shoulder, the plaintiff overtook it and moved over the continuous white line onto the other side of the road. The defendant contended that due to oncoming traffic, the plaintiff braked and pulled back into the lane forcing him to suddenly brake and to hit the back of the plaintiff’s car.

There were no independent witnesses to the crash. The plaintiff issued proceedings in the Circuit Court seeking damages for soft tissue injuries suffered.

In the Circuit Court, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.

The High Court

Mr Justice Twomey observed that the case was “a classic case of he says/she says” and that it was important to remember that the onus was on the plaintiff to establish her version of events to the balance of probabilities and that there was no onus on the defendant to establish that his version of events was correct.

The judge expressed agreement with the Circuit Court that the damage to the left-hand side of the plaintiff’s vehicle and her “illogical” position as to the visibility of the tractor on the road, called into question her recollection of the events of the day.

In those circumstances, the court found for the defendant and affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court. 

Mr Justice Twomey considered that the plaintiff had suffered an injustice because due to the rule that costs follow the event, she was likely to pay €50,000 or more in legal costs to resolve a claim which was estimated to be worth €16,500.

The judge opined: “In this court’s view, it cannot amount to true justice, for the resolution of a claim to cost multiples of its value.”

Mr Justice Twomey expressed that the combination of low monetary thresholds for cases to be heard in the High Court and Circuit Court, and the “dramatic reduction” in the proportion of District and Circuit Courts relative to High Courts, has resulted in minor claims not being heard in the more affordable District Court.

In this regard, the court posited, “on the basis that High Court costs are likely to remain at their current level, perhaps ‘urgent consideration’ (to use Clarke C.J.’s phrase) might instead be given to a different way of making justice affordable”.

The court continued: “Thus, 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. 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.”

Mr Justice Twomey highlighted that since the plaintiff had lost in both the Circuit and High Court, her “pursuit of justice” resulted in her obligation to pay Circuit and High Court costs to the defendant. 

Emphasising the importance of proportionality in personal injuries awards as discussed in Delaney v The Personal Injuries Board and Others [2024] IESC 10, the High Court considered that proportionality means that there should be proportionality between the value of a claim and the costs of its resolution, where those costs will have to be paid by the losing party.

In this regard, the court suggested that it would seem fair to a plaintiff or defendant, if, in order to resolve a claim, it would cost a proportion of the value of the claim.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and indicated that the defendant was entitled to his costs.

Putniene v McDonald & Ors [2025] IEHC 682