Healy v Noonan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Noonan |
| Judgment Date | 03 April 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IEHC 206 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2014 No. 10273 P] |
| Date | 03 April 2017 |
[2017] IEHC 206
THE HIGH COURT
Noonan J.
[2014 No. 10273 P]
Administrative law – Practice & Procedures – Dismissal of the plaintiff's claim – Plea of limitation – S. 50 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 – Date of issue of authorisation by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board – Right to access to courts
Facts: The defendant sought an order for dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for the damages on the basis that it was statute barred. The defendant submitted that since the date of authorisation by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (“Board”), the six-month time period had elapsed and thus, the plaintiff could not proceed with the claim. The plaintiff contended that the Board had sent the requisite form to the plaintiff twice after the date of authorisation for correction of an error relating to the correct date of accident, and thus, the time began on the date later than the original authorisation date.
Mr. Justice Noonan dismissed the defendant's application and held that the plaintiff's claim was not statute barred. The Court found that provisions of s. 50 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 should be interpreted by giving it plain and simple meaning. The Court held that s. 50 provided that an application under s. 11 would be made on the date on which the application in the prescribed form was acknowledged in writing as having been received by the Board. The Court found that in the present case, the board receiving the application returned it to the plaintiff for making necessary changes. The Court held that thus, the date on which the Board received the application with the incorporation of necessary changes by the plaintiff would be the date of making of an application under s. 11 and thus, the period of limitation should be reckoned from that date.
In the within motion, the defendant seeks an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it is statute barred. The defendant alternatively seeks an order directing the trial of the same issue as a preliminary issue.
The plaintiff was involved in a road traffic accident on the 24th November, 2010, in Limerick City when he alleges that his stationary vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant's car. He claims to have suffered personal injuries as a result. The plaintiff is a taxi driver and suffers from dyslexia.
The plaintiff applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (‘the Board’) for an assessment of his damages pursuant to s. 11 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’). He made the application by way of submitting a pro forma document known as ‘Form A’ prescribed by the Board for the making of such applications. The document was completed by the plaintiff himself without legal advice or assistance. In the document, the plaintiff stated that the date of the accident was the 30th September, 2010. He signed the document and thereafter in the blank space proceeded by the word ‘Date:’ he wrote ‘Friday’. The Form A document completed by the plaintiff was accompanied by a report from his general medical practitioner who completed another document prescribed by the Board known as ‘Form B’ which is a template medical report.
In this document, the plaintiff's G.P., in the box entitled ‘Date of accident’ wrote: ‘our records – 24/11/10 his records – 30/09/10’. Both of these documents, which were received by the Board, were date stamped the 12th November, 2012, by the Board. By letter dated the 14th November, 2012, the Board wrote to the plaintiff in the following terms:
‘Dear Mr. Healy
In order to complete your claim we require additional information so that the time can stop running against the named respondent. You should be aware that the law only allows a limited time within which you can bring your personal injury claim (normally two years from the date of the accident), so it is important that you give this your urgent attention.
We are unable to acknowledge your claim as complete until we receive the following:
** Form A is incomplete. We return it for full completion and to assist we have highlighted the outstanding queries.
** As there is a discrepancy between the date of the incident on the Form A and that on the medical report card please confirm the correct date of incident….
Yours etc.’
In response to this letter, the plaintiff re-submitted precisely the same Form A as previously submitted with the sole change that in the box entitled ‘Date of injury/accident’ he struck through the previous date ‘30/09/2010’ and substituted above it ‘24/11/10’.
He returned the amended Form A to the Board who date stamped it the 20th November, 2012. At this juncture, the limitation period was due to expire four days later on 24th November, 2012.
By letter of the 3rd December, 2012, containing the same pro forma first paragraph as the earlier letter, the Board wrote:
‘we are unable to acknowledge your claim as complete until we receive the following:
** Form A is incomplete. We return it for full completion and to assist we have highlighted the outstanding queries. Kindly have the LAST page dated correctly …’
The emphasised sentence was a new addition from the previous letter. This letter was written after the expiry of the limitation period.
Ultimately, an authorisation was issued by the Board on the 17th June, 2014, which stated that the date of the relevant claim was ‘30/09/2010’. Thereafter a plenary summons was issued on behalf of the plaintiff on the 5th December, 2014, which also stated erroneously that the date of the accident was 30th September, 2010. There is now no dispute about the date of the accident. The defendant contends that the accident occurred on 24th November, 2010, and the plaintiff agrees.
The defendant contends for two straightforward propositions. First, the defendant says that under the relevant legislation to which I shall refer, time does not stop running against the plaintiff for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations until an application is made to the Board. Such an application is only made when it has been received in a form specified in relevant Regulations and such receipt has been acknowledged in writing by the Board. In the present case, the correctly completed form was not received by the Board and acknowledged in writing by it as having been received within the limitation period and thus the claim is statute-barred.
Secondly, the defendant contends that the authorisation issued in this case is valid only in respect of an accident that occurred on 30th September, 2010, and does not authorise the institution of any proceedings relating to an accident that occurred on 24th November, 2010, by consensus the correct date.
The plaintiff by reference to the authorities to which I shall refer argued that an appropriately completed form as required by the rules was submitted within time, thus the application was made within time and the statute stopped on the date of receipt of that application being the 20th November 2010. On the authorisation point, the plaintiff argues that this is clearly a simple error by the Board in circumstances where it had originally been given the wrong date, this was corrected by the plaintiff but the authorisation was incorrectly issued by the Board without taking the later date into account. That can be amended simply by the issue of a fresh authorisation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clarke v Governor of Wheatfield Prison
...in the prescribed form can have the consequence of restricting a person's right of access to the courts. (See Healy v. Noonan [2017] IEHC 206, [2017] 2 I.R. 371). The precise requirements should, therefore, be prescribed in detail under the Rules, as is required under Section 46. The ad hoc......