Haughton v Quinns of Baltinglass Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 01 October 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 532
• Docket Number: 2017 No. 7450 P
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 October 2018

[2018] IEHC 532

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2017 No. 7450 P

Between:

John Haughton

Plaintiff

– and –

Quinns of Baltinglass Ltd

Defendant

Damages – Personal injuries – Liability – Defendant seeking contribution or indemnity from a third party – Whether there was a sufficient basis for the joinder of a third party

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Haughton, applied to the High Court seeking damages for personal injuries arising from an accident said to have occurred at the premises of the defendant, Quinns of Baltinglass Ltd, on 21st July, 2015. He alleged that his arm was crushed by a machine used by the defendant for the purposes of dispensing cattle feed. The machine was said to be a vehicle known as a ‘Manitou Maniscopic Loader’. That vehicle was claimed to have been at all times insured under a Commercial Motor Fleet Insurance Policy that the defendant had in place with Zurich Insurance plc. Strictly without prejudice to the defendant’s denial of liability, in the event that the defendant was found liable in the proceedings, the defendant wished to contend that any liability arising falls to Zurich to meet. The defendant sought to advance this contention, having regard to the insurance policy aforesaid and on the basis, inter alia, of the decision of the Court of Justice in Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav [2014] CJEU C-162/13.

Held by Barrett J that there was a sufficient basis for the joinder of Zurich as a third party, pursuant to O.16, r.1, RSC, on the basis that the defendant wished to claim (i) contribution or indemnity from Zurich (thus bringing itself within sub-category (a) of O.16, r.1(1), RSC) and/or (ii) any relief or remedy relating to or connected with the original subject matter of the action and substantially the same as some relief or remedy claimed by the plaintiff (thus bringing itself within sub-category (b) of O.16, r.1(1), RSC)). Additionally, and bringing the defendant within category (c) of O.16, r.1(1), RSC, the court considered that (a) any issue between the defendant and Zurich, pertaining to the applicability and operability of Vnuk was an important issue relating to or connected with Mr Haughton’s claim against the defendant and (b) such issue ought properly and could conveniently be determined in these proceedings.

Barrett J held that he would make the orders sought at items 1 and 2 of the notice of motion.

Judgment approved.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 1st October, 2018.

1 Mr Haughton is seeking damages for personal injuries arising from an accident that is said to have occurred at the defendant's premises on 21st July, 2015. The defendant is a limited liability company incorporated in Ireland and engaged in an agri-store business at its premises in Athy, Co Kildare. Mr Haughton is a farmer and, on 21st July, 2015, was lawfully on the defendant's premises for the purposes of purchasing cattle feed. He alleges that his arm was crushed by a machine used by the defendant for the purposes of dispensing cattle feed. His proceedings were commenced by way of personal injuries summons which issued on 14th August, 2017, and was served under cover of letter dated 6th September, 2017. Particulars have been raised and replies to same furnished (both in September 2017); a full defence was delivered on 23rd November, 2017.

2 It is pleaded, inter alia, in the personal injuries summons that a hydraulically controlled bucket of a loading shovel, being ‘ part of a machine’ used to dispense cattle meal was – ‘ due to the negligence, breach of duty, including breach of statutory duty and/or nuisance of the Defendant, its servants or agents’ – caused to close, crushing Mr Haughton's left arm. The machine is said to be a vehicle known as a “Manitou Maniscopic Loader”. That vehicle is claimed to have been at all times insured under a Commercial Motor Fleet Insurance Policy that the defendant has in place with...