Purcell v Taylor T/A The Star Tavern and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr Justice Michael Peart
Judgment Date26 May 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] IEHC 118
Docket NumberHc 238\04
CourtHigh Court
Date26 May 2004

[2004] IEHC 118

THE HIGH COURT

Hc 238\04
Record No: 1545P/2002
PURCELL v. TAYLOR T/A THE STAR TAVERN & ORS

Between:

David Purcell
Plaintiff

And

Raymond Taylor and Maria Taylor, trading as The Star Tavern And by Order : Dermot Nolan and Michael O'Halloran
Defendants

Citations:

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (AMDT) ACT 1991 S2

ALLIED IRISH COAL SUPPLIES LTD V POWELL DUFFRYN INTERNATIONAL FUELS 1998 2 IR 519

B (V) KENNEMERLAND GROEP V MONTGOMERY & ORS 2000 ILRM 370

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (AMDT) ACT 1991 S2(2)

Abstract:

Practice and procedure - Parties - Joinder of co-defendant - Limitation of action - Date of knowledge - Whether plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known that co-defendant potentially liable for injuries sustained by him - Whether co-defendant should be joined in proceedings - Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991, section 2 - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, Order 15, rule 13.

Facts: the third defendant appealed to the High Court from an order of the Master joining him as a co-defendant on the basis that since the incident which gave rise to the plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries took place on the 12th February, 2000, the claim as against him was statute barred. The plaintiff alleged that the first time that he became aware that the third defendant might need to be joined as a party to the proceedings was on the 23rd May, 2003 when the defence was delivered. The plaintiff submitted that the third defendant

Held by Peart J in refusing the appeal that the plaintiff enjoyed the benefit of section 2 of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 which provides that where the time within which an action in respect of an injury could be brought depends on a person’s date of knowledge, references to that date of knowledge were references to the date on which he first had knowledge.

Reporter: P.C.

Judgment of
Mr Justice Michael Peart
1

By Order of the Master, Mr Dermot Nolan 9"the applicant") and Mr Michael O'Halloran were added as co-defendants in these proceedings.

2

The applicant has by Notice of Motion dated 23rd February 2004 applied to this court by way of appeal from the said Order which added him as a defendant. He does so on foot of his grounding affidavit sworn the 29th March 2004 and on the basis that since the incident which gave rise to the plaintiff's claim for personal injuries took place on the 12th February 2000, the claim as against him is now statute barred, and that in those circumstances he ought not be required to defend them.

3

It is relevant to note that when the application to join the applicant was made to the Master it was made by way of Notice of Motion, but the proposed defendants were not notice parties to that application, and therefore were not heard on the application. The plaintiff on the other hand contends that he did not become aware of the fact that the applicant was an appropriate person to join as a defendant in these proceedings until such time as the existing defendants delivered their defence, and in which they disclosed or pleaded for the first time that if (which is denied) the plaintiff suffered any injury, it is due to negligence, breach of duty, or breach of contract on the part of the applicant, and the other added defendant, Michael O'Halloran. That defence was delivered on the 23rdMay 2003.

4

At this stage it is appropriate to put the present application into a factual background.

5

The plaintiff alleges that on the 12th February 2000 while on the first and second named defendants” licensed premises as a customer, he was caused to slip and fall from a balcony, as a result of which he sustained personal injuries. He alleges that they failed to take reasonable care for his safety, exposed him to a risk which could have been avoided, maintained a hidden trap and/or danger for him and other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • O'Connell v Building and Allied Trades Union and Others
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • June 12, 2012
    ...189 SALOMAN v SALOMAN & CO 1897 AC 22 KINLON v CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN 2006 I ILRM 22 PURCELL v TAYLOR UNREP PEART 26.5.2004 2004/42/9734 2004 IEHC 118 RSC O.15 r2 SANDY LANE HOTEL LTD v TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD & ORS UNREP KEARNS 10.12.2010 2010/46/11583 2010 IEHC 443 PRACTICE & PROCEDURES Parti......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT