Fennell v Minister for Defence

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Meenan
• Judgment Date: 28 April 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 236
• Docket Number: [2008 No. 5379 P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 28 April 2020

BETWEEN

PATRICK FENNELL

PLAINTIFF

AND

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEFENDANTS

[2020] IEHC 236

Meenan J.

[2008 No. 5379 P]

THE HIGH COURT

Personal injury – Statute barred – Date of knowledge – Defendants seeking that the claim of the plaintiff be struck out – Whether the claim of the plaintiff was statute barred

Facts: The defendants, the Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General, applied to the High Court seeking that the claim of the plaintiff, Mr Fennell, be struck out on the basis that it was statute barred pursuant to the provisions of s. 3 of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991, as amended by s. 7 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. In his personal injury summons, the plaintiff claimed that he was subjected to bullying and harassment, discrimination and stress in the workplace, which he alleged commenced in September, 1983. The matters which the plaintiff complained of appeared to have been ongoing over a number of years. The plaintiff stated that he availed of a formal complaint procedure and sought a “redress of wrongs”. The personal injury summons was issued on 3 July 2008, the plaintiff having received an authorisation from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. A defence was delivered on 2 September 2009 but the issue of the Statute of Limitations was not pleaded until an amended defence was delivered nearly five years later in May, 2013.

Held by Meenan J that the plaintiff’s “date of knowledge” for the purposes of the 1991 Act would have to be determined by oral evidence. Meenan J held that the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that he only acquired the requisite no earlier than two years prior to the commencement of the proceedings. Meenan J held that this could be tried by way of a preliminary issue where both the plaintiff and the defendants would be entitled to call what evidence they wished.

Meenan J held that he would hear counsel as to the consequential orders that arose.

Trial by way of a preliminary issue.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Meenan delivered on the 28th day of April, 2020

Background

1 This is an application on the part of the defendants seeking that the plaintiff's claim be struck out on the basis that it is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of s. 3 of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991 (the “Act of 1991”), as amended by s. 7 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004.

2 In his personal injury summons, the plaintiff claims that he was subjected to bullying and harassment, discrimination and stress in the workplace, which he alleges commenced in September, 1983. The matters which the plaintiff complains of appear to have been ongoing over a number of years. The plaintiff stated that he availed of a formal complaint procedure and sought a “redress of wrongs”.

3 The personal injury summons was issued on 3 July 2008, the plaintiff having received an authorisation from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. A Defence was delivered on 2 September 2009 but the issue of the Statute of Limitations was not pleaded until an amended Defence was delivered nearly five years later in May, 2013.

Application before the Court

4 In their Notice of Motion, the defendants seek: -

“… An order pursuant to the inherent and/or equitable jurisdiction of this Honourable Court dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it is bound to fail, the proceedings having been commenced at a time outside the period prescribed under s. 3 of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991 …”

Relevant statutory provisions

5 Section 2 of the Act of 1991 provides: -

“2. (1) For the purposes of any provision of this Act whereby the time within which an action in respect of an injury may be brought depends on...