Clarke v Governor of Wheatfield Prison
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Garrett Simons |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 386 |
| Docket Number | 2018 No. 468 CA |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 06 June 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 386
THE HIGH COURT
CIRCUIT APPEAL
Simons J.
2018 No. 468 CA
Personal injury – Limitation period – Statute barred – Plaintiff seeking to appeal from the Circuit Court – Whether the proceedings were statute barred
Facts: An incomplete application form on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Clarke, was submitted to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (the Injuries Board) within the limitation period for personal injury actions. The application form did not, however, identify the date upon which the alleged accident was said to have occurred. Notwithstanding a series of letters from the Injuries Board requesting this information, the date of the alleged accident was not provided until almost two years after the date of the original submission of the application form. As of the date the information was provided, the limitation period had already expired. The matter came before the High Court by way of an appeal from the Circuit Court. The appeal concerned the calculation of the limitation period. More specifically, the dispute between the parties centred on the question of when an application to the Injuries Board can be said to have been “made” so as to suspend the running of time for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations. The central issue in this appeal was whether the Circuit Court was correct in concluding that the application could not have been said to have been “made” to the Injuries Board until the missing information in respect of the date of the accident was ultimately supplied.
Held by Simons J that an application for the purposes of s. 50 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 was not “made” in this case until the plaintiff’s solicitors furnished details of the date of the alleged accident under cover of their letter of 14 December 2016; as of that date, the two-year limitation period had long since expired. Simons J held that s. 50 does not operate to revive a stale claim. He held that the proceedings were instituted before the Circuit Court on 14 July 2017, more than two years after the date of the alleged accident on 15 June 2012. He held that the proceedings were, accordingly, statute barred.
Simons J proposed making an order dismissing the appeal from the Circuit Court. He affirmed the order dismissing the proceedings on the basis that same were statute barred under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991. He made an order directing that the plaintiff was to pay the costs of the defendants, the Governor of Wheatfield Prison and the Irish Prison Service, in respect of both the proceedings before the Circuit Court and before the High Court (such costs to be taxed in default of agreement).
Appeal dismissed.
This matter comes before the High Court by way of an appeal from the Circuit Court. The appeal concerns the calculation of the limitation period for personal injury actions. More specifically, the dispute between the parties centres on the question of when an application to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (‘ the Injuries Board’) can be said to have been ‘made’ so as to suspend the running of time for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations. It is common case that an incomplete application form on behalf of the Plaintiff was submitted to the Injuries Board within the limitation period. The application form did not, however, identify the date upon which the alleged accident is said to have occurred. Notwithstanding a series of letters from the Injuries Board requesting this information, the date of the alleged accident was not provided until almost two years after the date of the original submission of the application form. As of the date the information was provided, the limitation period had already expired.
The central issue in this appeal is whether the Circuit Court was correct in concluding that the application could not have been said to have been ‘made’ to the Injuries Board until the missing information in respect of the date of the accident was ultimately supplied.
The resolution of this issue requires consideration of the rules made by the Injuries Board. As explained presently, one of the curiosities of this case is that no form has been prescribed under the rules in respect of the making of an application to the Injuries Board.
The Plaintiff herein has issued proceedings in the Circuit Court seeking damages for personal injuries said to have been incurred on 15 June 2012. At the time of the alleged accident, the Plaintiff was detained as a prisoner at Wheatfield Prison, Clondalkin. The Personal Injury Summons indicates, at Schedule 3 thereof, that the Injuries Board issued an authorisation pursuant to Section 14 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (as amended) on 1 March 2017. The proceedings were subsequently instituted on 14 July 2017.
The Defendants have filed a full Defence to the proceedings. It is pleaded by way of preliminary objection that the proceedings are statute barred pursuant to the Statute of Limitations.
The dispute the subject-matter of the present appeal concerns the events leading up to the issue of the authorisation by the Injuries Board on 1 March 2017. It is common case that an application for the assessment of damages was submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff pursuant to Section 11 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (as amended) on 22 January 2014. The application had been made by way of a pro forma application form. The application form consists of a series of boxes which are to be filled in by an applicant. The form in this case had been only partially completed. In particular, under the heading ‘Accident Details’, the boxes next to the questions ‘date of injury/accident’ and ‘time of injury/accident’ have both been left blank.
The application form had been forwarded to the Injuries Board under cover of letter dated 21 January 2014 from the Plaintiff's solicitors, Thomas Loomes & Company. The application form is stamped as having been received by the Injuries Board on 22 January 2014.
The application form indicated that the Plaintiff was making claims in respect of two separate incidents. The first claim was against a medical doctor and involved an allegation that the Plaintiff had been left on prescribed medication for too long a period, and that his eyesight had suffered as a result. A claim of this type does not fall within the remit of the Injuries Board and, accordingly, would not have required an authorisation. See Section 3 (d) of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (‘the provision of any medical advice or treatment to a person’ is excluded). As explained presently, this claim was not ultimately pursued by the Plaintiff, and forms no part of the claim pleaded in the Personal Injury Summons of 14 July 2017. The second claim was in respect of an accident at the prison. It is alleged that the Plaintiff had been injured as a result of a stack of wooden planks having fallen upon him.
The Injuries Board had written to the Plaintiff's solicitors immediately upon receipt of the incomplete application form. Two letters dated 22 January 2014 were sent as follows. The first letter indicated that the Injuries Board was awaiting receipt of the following information.
‘We await receipt of the following:
□ Completed Form A – we return for full completion
□ Date of incident ?
□ Medical report from treating doctor on Medical Assessment Form (Form B)
□ Payment of €45 which can be made by cheque, postal order, laser or credit card. You can provide your card details to our helpline or complete the details in the space below. […]
Please also note that if it is the case that Mr. Clarke's claim arises out of the provision of any health service to a person, the carrying out of a medical or surgical procedure in relation to a person or the provision of any medical advice or treatment to a person, as set out in Section 3 (d) of the PIAB Act 2003, then the claim is outside the remit of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and there is no necessity for an application to be made to the Board.
We would be obliged if you would please confirm the position regarding Mr. Clarke's application.’
This second aspect was repeated in a separate letter of the same date, 22 January 2014.
Thereafter, there followed a lengthy exchange of correspondence whereby the Injuries Board continued to request the Plaintiff's solicitors to confirm the date of the accident and to confirm the position in respect of the claim as against the medical doctor. Relevantly, a number of these letters from the Injuries Board expressly stated that the Plaintiff had only a limited legal timeframe within which to bring his claim. In other words, the Plaintiff's solicitors were being reminded of the obligation to comply with the Statute of Limitations.
The date of the accident was only confirmed for the first time by letter dated 14 December 2016 from the Plaintiff's solicitors, as follows.
‘We refer to the above and we apologise for the delay in replying to you in relation to this case but we have had severe difficulty in obtaining clear instructions from our client.
The position is that our client wishes to proceed against the Irish Prison Service arising out of an incident that occurred on the 15th June 2012 when he was hit by timber in Wheatfield Prison.
Our client will not be proceeding with any other action on foot of this application and we confirm that he had a medical examination last Saturday. The position is that the Plaintiff broke his hand and elbow in the prison.
We confirm that we will let you have medical report as soon as same comes to hand.
In the meantime we would be very much obliged if you would deem the matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial