Murphy v J. Donohoe Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C.J.,McCarthy J.,O'FLAHERTY J.,EGAN J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1992 WJSC-SC 852
• Docket Number: [1989 Nos. 12103P and 12194P]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1993

1992 WJSC-SC 852

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

Hederman J.

McCarthy J.

O'Flaherty J.

Egan J.

207 &208/91

MURPHY v. DONOHOE

JAMES MURPHY (A MINOR) SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIENDMARGARET MURPHY

Plaintiff

Respondent

AND

LENA MARIE MURPHY (A MINOR) SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXTFRIEND MARGARET MURPHY

Plaintiff/

Respondent

and

J. DONOHOE LIMITED, FIAT AUTO (IRELAND) LIMITED, PROTECTACARCONTRACT SERVICING LIMITED AND JAMES MURPHY

Defendants

Citations:

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S16

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S17

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S16(1)

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S16(2)

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S35(1)(h)

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S22

MERRYWEATHER V NIXAN 101 ER 1337

DUCK V MAYEU 1892 2 QB 511

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S17(1)

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S17(2)

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S16(3)

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S35

Synopsis:

ACTION

Compromise

Terms - Record - Necessity - Personal injuries - Claim to damages - Concurrent wrongdoers - Settlement negotiated on behalf of one wrongdoer - Judgment recovered against that wrongdoer - Whether plaintiff's claims against other wrongdoers discharged - (207/91 - Supreme Court - 11/3/92) - [1993 1 I.R. 534 - [1992] ILRM 378

|Murphy v. J. Donohoe Ltd.|

NEGLIGENCE

Wrongdoer

Damage - Satisfaction - Concurrent wrongdoers - Liability - Discharge - Compromise of claim against fourth defendant - Judgment entered against that defendant - Whether other wrongdoers discharged - Civil Liability Act, 1961, ss. 16, 17 - (207/91 - Supreme Court - 11/3/92) [1993 1 I.R. 534 [1992] ILRM 378

|Murphy v. J. Donohoe Ltd.|

PRACTICE

Defence

Payment into court - Infants - Injuries - Action - Damages - Negligence - Concurrent wrongdoers - Settlement negotiated on behalf of one wrongdoer - Judgment recovered against that wrongdoer - Whether plaintiff's claims against other wrongdoers discharged - (207/91 - Supreme Court - 11/3/92) - [1993] 1 I.R. 534

|Murphy v. J. Donohoe Ltd.|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Satisfaction

Wrongdoers - Damage - Plaintiff - Action - Damages claimed - Settlement negotiated on behalf of one wrongdoer - Judgment recovered against that wrongdoer - Whether plaintiff's claims against other wrongdoers discharged - (207/91 - Supreme Court - 11/3/92) - [1993] 1 I.R. 534 - [1992] ILRM 378

|Murphy v. J. Donohoe Ltd.|

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 11th day of March 1992by FINLAY C.J. [HEDERMAN CONC].

2 These are two appeals in two actions for damages for personal injuries in which identical points on an appeal from the decision of a preliminary issue arise ineach case, and both were heard together in the High Court and in thiscourt.

The facts

3 On the 23rd June 1988 the two infant Plaintiffs, who are brother and sister, were in a motor car the property of their father, who is the fourth named Defendant, when it went on fire and they received, we are informed, extensive burning.

4 In the statements of claim filed in the two cases it was alleged that the car had been purchased from the first-named Defendants and had subsequently been serviced by them, that it had been distributed by the second-named Defendants in Ireland, as it was a Fiat motor car, and a claim was made that the third-named Defendant had provided parts which were inserted in the car and which may have been involved in the fire. The fourth-named Defendant was not only the owner of the car but had also, from time to time, carried out work in connection with some of the electrical installations in the car.

5 Apparently, a claim was notified against each of these four Defendants, and some time prior to the 18th October 1989 a settlement of the claim as between the fourth-named Defendant and the infant Plaintiffs was agreed subject to the approval of the court, as a result of which the indemnifiers of the fourth-named Defendant would pay into court to the credit of both the actions a sum of £815,000 in full discharge of his liability to the infant Plaintiffs. It is stated that it was a term of that settlement that the infant Plaintiffs would issue proceedings which had not yet been issued against all four Defendants and should prosecute them expeditiously. Proceedings were then instituted by plenary summons of the 18th October 1989 and application was made to Hamilton P. in the High Court for approval of the settlement. It would appear that no written agreement or consent of settlement was entered into between the parties and there does not appear to have been any affidavit filed for the purpose of ruling the settlement,nor was any evidence given to the learned President. He was afforded an opportunity to read medical reports, and was apparently informed by Counsel as to the nature of the settlement which was being ruled. As a result, on the 21st February 1990 the learned President made an order in each of the two cases which having recited that a settlement had been reached by the parties in the action, directed as follows:

"The court doth approve of the settlement and by consent it is ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiff do recover against the fourth Defendant the sum of £407,500 and costs of this action when taxed and ascertained. And it is ordered"

(1) that the fourth Defendant do forthwith pay into court to the credit of this action and separate credit of the said infant the said sum of £407,500

(2) that out of the money in court the sum of £7,500 be paid to the solicitors for the Plaintiff, they having undertaken to expend that sum as follows:

6 £2,500 special damages

7 £5,000 to be paid to the parents of the saidinfant to be applied to the benefit of the said infant

8 (3) that the balance of the funds in court be invested on interest bearing deposit until further order

9 (4) that the said Plaintiff be made a ward of court and that the said Margaret Murphy and James Murphy (parents of the Plaintiff) be appointed guardians of the fortune of the said infantPlaintiff."

10 Pursuant to that order and direction the sum of £407,500 was paid into court to the separate credit of each of the two actions on behalf of the fourth-named Defendant, James Murphy.

11 It is agreed that none of the other Defendants were informed of the making of this settlement, either before it was reached or after it was reached, and were not present upon the moving of the application for approval by the learned President of the settlement.

12 Statements of claim were filed against the defendants, including the fourth-named Defendant, afterthe date on which this order was made by the learned President, but contained no reference to the making of any settlement between the infant Plaintiffs and the fourth-named Defendant. Subsequently, it would appear that the second-named Defendant at least became aware of the making of the settlement and a defence was delivered on behalf of that Defendant on the 6th November 1990, raising at paragraph 9 thereof, after a full denial of liability on the issues of negligence and damages, the following paragraph:

"Further, or in the alternative, by reason of a settlement entered into between the Plaintiff and the fourth-named Defendant, approved by court order, the second-named Defendant has been discharged from liability in respect of this claim pursuant to the provisions of sections 16 and 17 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, and the Plaintiff is not therefore entitled to maintain this action against the second-named Defendant."

13 Contemporaneously with that defence, claims for contribution were made on behalf of the second-namedDefendant and previously other claims for contributions amongst the Defendants had been made in the action.

14 It would appear that the matter then came before the learned President of the High Court on the 13th November of 1990. Again, it does not appear that there was any formal notice for the trial of an issue preliminary to any other trial in the action, but apparently with the consent of all parties who were present and represented, there was heard the issues arising from the defence filed by the second-named Defendant, in respect of which the first-named Defendant sought also to participate and to have a declaration made to the same effect, though no actual amendment of its defence had been made. The matter was apparently heard without any evidence, either in the form of affidavit or oral evidence, but on submissions only, and was completed on the 13th November 1990. The learned President reserved his judgment and then delivered a reserved judgment on the 20th November 1990. On thatdate he made an order in the following terms:

"The application of counsel for the second Defendants for a declaration that the monies paid into court herein to the credit of the Plaintiffs by the fourth Defendant pursuant to order herein dated the 21st February 1990 amounts to satisfaction in accordance with section 16(1) of the Civil Liability Act 1961coming before the court on the 13th November 1990

And on hearing said counsel and counsel for the first and fourth Defendants and counsel for the Plaintiffs

The court doth reserve its decision herein to the 20th November 1991 (sic) recte 1990

And the same coming on accordingly for judgment on this day

It is Ordered that the said application be refused And it is Ordered that the second Defendant do pay to the plaintiff and the fourth Defendant their respective costs of this application and order whentaxed."

15 In the course of that judgment the learned President stated asfollows:

"On the 21st day of February 1990, I, in the interests of the unfortunate infant Plaintiffsherein, approved of an arrangement which had been entered into by counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs and by counsel on behalf of the fourth named Defendant, whereby in consideration of the mother and next friend of the infant Plaintiffs proceeding with the action against all the Defendants in these proceedings, the fourth named Defendant would pay into court for the benefit of the said infants a total of£815,000....