Murphy –v- Grealish
Supreme Court
Judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Geoghegan on February 10th, 2009, Mr Justice Kearns and Ms Justice Macken concurring
Judgment
An appeal by Quinn Direct, the insurers of the defendant in a case arising out of a car accident, against a High Court judgment refusing to dismiss the proceedings because they were statute-barred, was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Background
The action was brought outside the three-year period, and the Statute of Limitations was duly pleaded, but the plaintiff in the case replied that the defendant was estopped from raising the statutory period by his actions and those of his servants or agents.
This was because, from an early stage, liability for the accident was admitted by the plaintiff’s insurers.
The accident took place in May 2000 and consisted of Mr Grealish’s car driving into the stationary car of Mr Murphy, the plaintiff, causing him significant injuries.
In August the defendant’s insurers, Quinn Direct, wrote personally to the plaintiff agreeing to pay the sum of £1,849.53 for the damage to his car. It made no reference to a possible claim for personal injuries.
Mr Murphy’s solicitor responded, pointing out that the plaintiff had received injuries during the accident. Correspondence concerning medical examinations ensued, and on December 5th, 2002 Quinn Direct wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitor asking if the plaintiff would be prepared to share medicals and discuss settlement of the claim. This letter stated: “Liability is not an issue.”
Correspondence concerning medical examinations continued. In January 2004 a reference was made in correspondence to the issuing of High Court proceedings. In May of that year the issue of statute bar was raised for the first time by Quinn Direct in a letter which stated: “We will not be dealing with any claims from your client and we are therefore closing our file of papers.”
Mr Murphy’s solicitors responded that they were relying on the defendant’s insurer’s admission of liability.
Decision
Mr Justice Geoghegan discussed the law on the matter as outlined in Ryan –v- Connolly and Doran –v- Thomas Thompson and Sons Ltd .
“In my opinion, when the judgments in both cases are carefully studied, two important factors emerge,” he said. “The first is that an admission of liability is all-important in considering an issue of estoppel preventing reliance on the Statute of Limitations.”
He said this did not mean that where there was an admission of liability, the plaintiff could always ignore the Statute with impunity. But he pointed out that in neither Doran nor Ryan was there an admission of liability, and that was the key point in both cases.
Turning to the MacMenamin judgment in this case, he said it was clear from the facts of the case, where the plaintiff was injured as a result of a collision with his stationary car, that there could not be a liability issue. “The clear acknowledgments by the appellant’s insurers that there was in fact no liability issue would be likely to lull the respondent and/or his solicitor into a sense of security that the issue of proceedings within a particular time limit was not of importance.”
He said that he agreed with Mr Justice MacMenamin when he stated that the appellants were estopped, in the circumstances of the case, from now pleading the Statute of Limitations.
Dismissing the appeal, he added that there was nothing unjust about the Statute of Limitations. “It prevents stale claims difficult to defend from being pursued. In the absence of substantial unfairness a court will not allow a defence of statute bar properly to be defeated.”
The full judgment is on www.cours.ie
Brian Murray SC and Peter Somers BL, instructed by
O’Dea Co, Hardiman House, Galway, for the plaintiff; Hugh Mohan SC and Paul O’Neill BL, instructed by Tormey solicitors, Athlone, for the defendant