O'Driscoll v. Dublin Corporation

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a Motion brought by the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh named Defendants (the last three Defendants) seeking an order to stay the personal injury action against them on the basis that it is statute barred under Section 11(2)(a) of the Statute of Limitations, 1957, as amended by the 1991 Amendment Act. The accident occurred on 11th August 1989, and the claim was not initiated within three years, raising the issue of limitation.

The action was initially commenced against the first three Defendants by Plenary Summons on 12th October 1990. The Fourth Defendant was joined by court order in August 1993, and the last three Defendants were joined on 14th October 1996. The accident involved the Plaintiff sustaining severe electric shock injuries from contact with a steel pipe enclosing electrical appliances outside the old Carlton Cinema in Dublin. There was difficulty in identifying the owner or occupier of the site, with initial information from the Bank of Ireland indicating Persian Properties Limited as owner, leading to that company being joined as the third Defendant.

Correspondence and investigations revealed that Persian Properties Limited did not own the relevant site at the time of the accident. Further inquiry uncovered a conveyance from the Bank of Ireland to the last three Defendants dated 18th September 1989 (after the accident), but the actual sale was completed on or about 24th August 1988. The Plaintiff's solicitors argued that they could not have known about the involvement of the last three Defendants until obtaining this information from the Bank's solicitors, and thus the action was brought within the limitation period from that date.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the personal injury action against the last three Defendants is statute barred under the Statute of Limitations as amended by the 1991 Act.
2. Whether the Plaintiff’s solicitors received a letter dated 12th December 1991 which, if received, would have established knowledge of the last three Defendants' ownership and thus triggered the limitation period.
3. Whether, independent of the letter, the Plaintiff’s solicitors ought reasonably to have discovered the ownership of the site by the last three Defendants through further inquiries, thus starting the limitation period earlier.
4. Whether an extension of time under the 1991 Amendment Act applies to allow the claim to proceed despite delay.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' (Last Three Defendants) Arguments

• The letter from their insurers’ solicitors dated 12th December 1991 informed the Plaintiff’s solicitors of their ownership, which if received, would render the claim statute barred.
• Even if the letter was not received, the Plaintiff’s solicitors should have reasonably made further inquiries with the Bank of Ireland after discovering Persian Properties Limited was not the owner and would have uncovered the ownership by the last three Defendants.

Respondent's (Plaintiff) Arguments

• The Plaintiff and their solicitors deny receipt of the 12th December 1991 letter; if it was not received, the limitation period should not start from that date.
• The Plaintiff could not have known of the last three Defendants’ involvement until receiving information from the Bank’s solicitors regarding the earlier completion date of the sale, and the action was brought within three years from that knowledge.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined whether the letter dated 12th December 1991 was received by the Plaintiff’s solicitors. Both parties provided credible evidence regarding postal and office procedures. The court found it could not conclude on the balance of probabilities that the letter was received, though it could not exclude the possibility. Consequently, the letter could not be relied upon by the last three Defendants to establish the limitation defence.

Regarding the obligation to make further inquiries, the court considered Section 2(2) of the 1991 Amendment Act, which imputes knowledge a person might reasonably be expected to acquire, including through their agents (solicitors). The court accepted that while a prudent solicitor might have investigated further upon discovering the conveyance date, it was not reasonable to expect the solicitors to question the conveyance or to know the real ownership at that time, especially given the complexity and delay in information emerging from the Bank.

Therefore, the Plaintiff successfully established an extension of time under the 1991 Act, rendering the claim not statute barred.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the personal injury action against the last three Defendants is not statute barred under the Statute of Limitations as amended by the 1991 Act.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s claim may proceed against these Defendants. No broader legal precedent was established beyond the application of the statutory provisions concerning knowledge and limitation periods in this factual context.