Campbell v Ward

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Miss Justice CARROLL
• Judgment Date: 28 April 1981
• Neutral Citation: 1981 WJSC-HC 1520
• Court: High Court
• Date: 28 April 1981

1981 WJSC-HC 1520

THE HIGH COURT

No. 4261 P./1978

Campbell v. Ward and McArdle

BETWEEN:

MARY ELLEN CAMPBEIL

Plaintiff

and

BERNARD J. WARD AND PATRICK McARDLE

Defendants

1 Miss Justice CARROLLdelivered on the 28th day of April 1981

2 This matter came before me on a single preliminary issue as to whether the plaintiff's claim herein is barred by reason of the Statute of Limitations 1957. The first-named defendant is plaintiff in the issue and the plaintiff is the defendant. The Attorney General has been served with a notice under Order 60 of the Superior Courts Rules and has appeared and become a party to the issue.

3 The facts relevant to determine this issue are agreed between the parties and are as follows:-

4 The plaintiff in the action, Mary Ellen Campbell, was born on the 7th Kay 1955. The date of the accident in respect of whichthe action arises, occurred on the 1st June 1972. The plaintiff attained her majority on the 7th May 1976. The Plenary Summons was issued on the 17th July 1978. It was conceded for the purpose of the trial of this issue that she was in the custody of a parent at the time when the right of action accrued to her within the meaning of Section 49(2) (a) (ii) of the Statute of Limitations 1957.

5 By virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of O'Brien .v. Keogh ( 1972 I.R. 44) section 49(2) (a) (ii) of the Statute of Limitations 1957 was held to be unconstitutional.

6 In the case of Moynihan .v. Greensmith ( 1977 I.R. 55) the Supreme Court,in its Judgment delivered by the learned Chief Justice, indicated that the decisions in O'Brien .v. Keogh and in a later case of O'Brien .v. Manufacturing Engineering Co. Limited( 1973 I.R. 334) seemed to be incompatible with the Court's ruling in Foley .v. The Irish Land Commission ( 1952 I.R. 118) and the Attorney General .v. Southern Industrial Trust Limited ( 1957 94 I.L.T.R. 161) and it is stated as follows at page 71:-

"In particular the Court reserves for a case in which the point has been duly raised and argued the question whether it was correctly decided in O'Brien .v. Keogh that section 49 sub-section 2 (a) (ii) of the Statute of Limitations"1957, is repugnant to the Constitution."

7 I do not consider that these words give me liberty to hear any arguments as to whether the case of O'Brien .v. Keogh was correctly decided. I consider that I am bound by the existing decision of the Supreme Court in that...