by Creagh Joy Solicitors | Jun 1, 2022 | Litigation
The first ever case in relation to a drone safety occurrence has been successfully prosecuted by the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) under Irish aviation regulations.
The incident occurred during a pro-Palestine demonstration outside of the Israeli embassy in May of 2021, when hundreds of people marched to protest violence that had erupted in Gaza at the time.
Threat to Public Safety
During the protest, a freelance filmmaker had been operating a drone to capture the scenes outside of the former embassy when it eventually seized by members of An Garda Síochána, who informed the IAA of the infringements. It was said that the operator of the drone did not appreciate the risk that it posed to the crowd gathered underneath, as they could be injured if the drone were to malfunction unexpectedly and fall suddenly.
In response to the charges, the defendant pleaded guilty and was awarded the Probation Act with an order to contribute to the Regulator’s legal costs. He was also ordered to make a charitable donation. Judge Anthony Halpin further noted the importance of being correctly licensed by the IAA when operating drones.
Use of Drones “Growing all the time”
Aviation Regulator Diarmuid Ó Conghaile cautioned of the need to ensure that public safety is maintained whilst operating a drone:
“As Ireland’s Aviation Regulator, the safety of the public is our priority. The onus is on those who operate drones to do so safely and within the scope of the law, which in this case is EU-wide and in force since the beginning of last year. Luckily no one was injured in this instance and the operator has admitted he was at fault.
The use of drones is growing all the time, and whilst we can educate people on the safety aspects of their use, drone pilots must understand that these operations come with risks. Had this pilot undertaken the necessary training, this incident is unlikely to have taken place. Cooperation between the Gardai and the IAA is invaluable in ensuring the safety of the public when it comes to aviation, as was seen in this case.”
*In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.*
by Creagh Joy Solicitors | Apr 16, 2022 | Litigation, Personal Injury
n the Kuczak case, the Judge noted that the Defendant had effectively accepted that they were liable for the injuries caused and the loss of earning. However, the consent terms sought to only reimburse the Department of Social Protection partially for the illness related benefits received by a Plaintiff.
Consent terms in personal injuries case![]()
Terms of consent are often the basis for resolving litigation. In Kuczak v Treacy Tyres (Portuma) Ltd [2022] IEHC 181, the Plaintiff, Mr Kuczak, and the insurance company for the Defendant, agreed that Mr Kuczak’s claim for personal injuries would be settled on the basis of consent terms. Both parties agreed that Mr Kuczak would receive, from the Defendant’s insurance company, a sum of money in satisfaction of his claim against the Defendant. The parties sought those terms of consent to be ruled by the High Court.
The matter came before Mr Justice Twomey. The terms signed by the parties include what is commonly known as a section 343R(2) consent order.
Section 343R(2) consent order
Section 343R(2) inserted a new provision into the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2013, whereby from 1 August 2014 defendants must reimburse the Department of Social Protection for certain illness related benefits received by a plaintiff in every personal injury case concluded after that date.
In the Kuczak case, the Judge noted that the Defendant had effectively accepted that they were liable for the injuries caused and the loss of earning. However, the consent terms sought to only reimburse the Department of Social Protection partially for the illness related benefits received by a Plaintiff. This, the Judge noted, effectively means that the taxpayer must bear the burden of the Defendant’s negligent actions. The Judge stated that if he were to rule the terms of consent, the insurance company would have the taxpayer foot the bill of €45,000, that would otherwise be regarded as a ‘business expense’ of the insurance company.
Mr Justice Twomey has requested that the Court Registrar send a copy of the judgment to the Minister for Social Protection and to give the Minister liberty to apply. The position taken by the Minister and any further judgments by the Court in this matter will likely have wide-reaching implications for personal injuries practitioners and insurance companies.
*In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.*
