The Illusion of Fairness: Why It’s Time to Rethink the Injuries Resolution Board

When the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) was first established in Ireland, it was heralded as a progressive solution to the slow and costly machinery of litigation. It promised a streamlined, non-adversarial process for resolving personal injury claims, one that would ease pressure on the courts while delivering justice quickly and efficiently to injured parties. The intent, we were told, was noble. The results, however, paint a more troubling picture.

This week, the IRB published its Motor Liability Report covering the years 2019 to 2024. In its own words, the report is a testament to the Board’s achievements in speed and savings. But reading between the lines reveals something far more disconcerting: a process that may short-change injured parties, suppress compensation, and, in many cases, obstruct real justice.

A Falling Hammer: Acceptance Rates and Undermined Confidence

Perhaps the most telling metric in the report is the acceptance rate. Of all awards made by the IRB in 2024 for motor liability claims, only 47% were accepted. Put another way, more than half of the injured parties or insurers involved found the IRB’s assessment inadequate. This is not a marginal figure. It is a damning indictment of a system that claims to offer satisfactory outcomes.

The very fact that over 50% of cases do not resolve within the IRB but instead progress into further legal wrangling suggests that the Board’s methods, however efficient on paper, fail to satisfy those they purport to serve. If parties are forced into the courts anyway, has the Board truly achieved anything more than a delay?

The Cost of Cost-Cutting: Falling Awards and the Devaluation of Suffering

A second deeply concerning trend is the precipitous drop in compensation levels since the implementation of the Judicial Council’s Personal Injuries Guidelines in 2021. While the IRB is not responsible for these guidelines, it operates under their instruction. The result has been a near 40% reduction in median award values across various claim types.

Consider this: in 2020, the median award in public liability cases was over €20,000. By 2023, it had fallen to just €12,414. Motor injury awards followed a similar trajectory. For a claimant who has suffered physical and emotional trauma, time off work, and potentially lifelong consequences, this drop is more than numbers. It is a societal judgment that their pain is worth less.

The IRB trumpets this as a success. Indeed, the report highlights that over €284 million has been saved in legal fees by resolving claims through the Board rather than through court proceedings. But this figure is not evidence of justice. It is evidence of a system obsessed with efficiency over equity.

One must ask: who benefits from this cost-cutting? Not the injured. Not the families navigating the aftermath of a serious car crash. The answer, inevitably, is insurers and institutional defendants.

Mandatory Delays: When Efficiency Becomes Obstruction

Claimants do not choose to go to the IRB. It is not an alternative they weigh freely. By law, they must begin there. No matter the complexity of the injury, no matter how urgent the claimant’s need for full redress, every personal injury case must first pass through the Board—unless it is settled directly between the parties.

In practice, this often creates unnecessary delays. Claimants whose cases will inevitably require judicial determination—because of liability disputes, multiple parties, or complex medical issues—still must wait for the IRB to do its part, even if that part is ultimately rejected. The IRB becomes a bottleneck, not a bridge.

The argument that the Board streamlines justice collapses under the weight of its own bureaucracy.

Justice in the Abstract: The Trouble With Standardisation

It is worth acknowledging that the IRB has, in recent years, taken steps to broaden its remit. It now accepts psychological injuries and minor injury claims from minors, areas once thought too delicate for its paper-based assessments. But this, too, invites concern.

Psychological injuries are among the most nuanced and least quantifiable. They do not manifest in X-rays or blood tests. They require sensitive, often longitudinal assessment. The idea that such injuries can be equitably evaluated through a brief paper review is deeply flawed. It reduces complex suffering to a bureaucratic tick-box.

The standardisation that the IRB offers may be suitable for clear-cut whiplash claims or minor fractures. It is dangerously inadequate for the kinds of multifaceted injuries that fundamentally alter lives.

The Quiet Erasure of Legal Representation

One of the IRB’s key selling points is that it removes the need for solicitors and barristers. It touts the money saved in legal fees as a victory for claimants. But here, too, lies a sleight of hand.

Legal advice is not merely a cost. It is a safeguard. A solicitor ensures that a claimant understands the implications of an offer. A barrister can identify where a medical report falls short or where a future loss has been inadequately considered. Stripping claimants of this expertise in the name of savings leaves them vulnerable.

The irony is that insurers almost always have legal advice. The imbalance could not be starker. One side arrives armed with experts; the other is encouraged to manage their case alone, with only the guidance of a state board whose objective, it increasingly seems, is not to maximise justice but to minimise cost.

The Public Illusion: Trust in the System

Perhaps most concerning of all is the danger that the IRB creates a false sense of justice. The average person may believe that once their case is before the Board, fairness will be done. They may assume that a state-run process will put their needs first. But this faith is misplaced.

The data tells us as much. A 47% acceptance rate is not a system working well. It is a system working for someone else.

Litigation Is Not the Enemy

Litigation has long been portrayed as the bloated villain in the tale. It is slow, expensive, combative. But it is also a forum where evidence is tested, where accountability is demanded, and where outcomes are reasoned and transparent. For all its flaws, the courtroom remains the only place where a claimant can challenge their opponent on equal terms.

Indeed, in recent years we have seen a quiet trend emerge: claimants who bypass the IRB process as quickly as possible and pursue their rights in court are achieving higher awards and more satisfactory settlements. There is growing recognition among legal practitioners that the IRB, far from being a shield, is an obstacle.

The reality is that when properly advised, many claimants would be better served by withdrawing their case from the Board at the earliest opportunity and seeking a full judicial determination. It may cost more. It may take longer. But it offers the one thing the IRB cannot guarantee: justice.

Reclaiming Agency: Empowering Claimants to Choose

It is time to rethink the mandatory nature of the IRB process. Why should a claimant with a complex case be required to endure a stage that offers little value and may undermine their position? Why should access to the courts be delayed by a process that half of participants reject?

Claimants deserve choice. If the IRB is truly effective, claimants will continue to use it voluntarily. But to compel participation is to deny agency to those who have already suffered harm.

We should also re-examine the metrics by which the Board defines success. Lower payouts and fewer lawyers may please the actuaries, but they do not reflect whether justice has been done.

A process is not successful because it is cheap. It is successful because it is fair.

The Case for Change

The IRB was created with good intentions, but it has become an institution that too often prioritises efficiency over equity. Its low acceptance rates, reduced award levels, and procedural rigidity serve neither the injured nor the ideal of justice.

It is time for a broader national conversation. One that includes the legal profession, the judiciary, and most importantly, those who have been injured and are seeking redress. We must ask ourselves what kind of system we want: one that counts pennies, or one that upholds rights.

Until then, my advice to claimants is simple: seek legal advice early. Know your rights. And do not mistake expedience for justice.

The courts may be slower, but they remain the only place where your voice can truly be heard.

If you would like an assessment of a claim, you can use the online form available here without obligation or alternatively you can use the automatic claim calculator.