Solicitors dealing with the victims of institutional abuse will probably get some phone calls this morning following the award of €300,000 to a man abused in St Joseph's institution in Kilkenny.
This is believed to be considerably more than the likely award in the Redress Board. It is understood that David Connellan was offered less than half this figure by the board, which he rejected.
According to lawyers dealing with Redress Board cases, the average awards fall between €50,000 and €100,000.
The highest award to any client of one lawyer who spoke to The Irish Times was €170,000.
However, a number of features distinguished this case from a lot of those before the Redress Board.
The first of these is the age of the man involved. At 46, Mr Connellan was much younger than most of those who were abused in institutions, with the bulk of the abuse taking place in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.
Many of those who seek redress are now quite elderly, and often in poor health.
They want an end to the whole nightmare and are willing to accept their €70,000 or €80,000 and get on with what is left of their lives.
In yesterday's case, the institution admitted that the abuse took place and the woman abuser was convicted in the courts.
This is not the case in many of the instances of abuse discussed at the board, where there is no requirement for proof of liability.
Those who appear before it need only prove their identity, the fact that they were in the named institution and that they suffered damage.
Some may have initiated proceedings in the High Court, but then decided to go down the Redress Board route.
While they might be tempted by yesterday's large award, they face risks in attempting to reactivate the court route, including having the case thrown out by the court on the issue of delay.
There are other uncertainties in seeking compensation in the courts, including the fact that any one of a number of judges might hear the case and there are variations in the approaches of different judges to such issues.
There is always a doubt about the outcome of a case before the courts.
The Redress Board offers a more certain, if financially more limited, outcome to a process aimed at bringing closure to horrific childhood experiences in institutional care.
Some may opt to take the court route after yesterday's judgment, but many others will stick with the Redress Board, on the basis that it offers some predictability as to the outcome.