Ryan v Connolly

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeKeane C.J.
Judgment Date31 January 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] IESC 9
CourtSupreme Court
Docket Number[S.C. No. 64 of 2000]
Date31 January 2001
RYAN v. CONNOLLY

BETWEEN:

DESMOND RYAN
Plaintiff
.v.
MICHAEL CONNOLLY AND ANNE MARIE CONNOLLY
Defendants

[2001] IESC 9

KEANE C.J.

MURPHY J.

McGUINNESS J.

64/2000

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis

Practice and Procedure

Practice and Procedure; Statute of Limitations; "without prejudice" privilege; plaintiff involved in road traffic accident with defendant; limitation period for initiating proceedings expired; trial judge determined that defendants precluded from standing on their legal rights due to circumstances of case; whether court entitled to look at "without prejudice" correspondence for the purpose of determining whether circumstances were such that defendants should not be allowed to maintain their plea under Statute of Limitations, 1957; whether defendants precluded from relying on a defence under Statute.

Held: Appeal allowed

Ryan v. Connolly - Supreme Court: Keane C.J., Murphy J., McGuinness J. - 31/01/2001 - [2001] 1 IR 627 - [2001] 2 ILRM 174

The plaintiff had been involved in motor collision accident thereby sustaining injuries. The accident occurred in April 1995 and the plenary summons was not issued until December 1998. The plaintiff prima facie accepted that the action was statute barred but contended that the delay in issuing the plenary summons was due to the actions of the defendants and that they were therefore estopped from denying the claim of the plaintiff. The High Court accepted the plaintiff's argument and struck out the relevant portion of the defendants' defence and instructed that the case now proceed to trial. On appeal the Supreme Court, Keane CJ delivering judgment, allowed the appeal and held that the defendants were entitled to rely upon a defence under the Statute of Limitations, 1957.

Citations:

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S11(2)(b)

HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND 4ED V17 PARA 212

CUTTS V HEAD 1984 CH 290

DORAN V THOMPSON LTD 1978 IR 223

LOW V BOUVERIE 1891 3 CH 82

1

JUDGMENT delivered the 31st day of January 2001by Keane C.J.

2

This case raises again an issue which has concerned the courts on a number of occasions, i.e. the circumstances in which a defendant should not be permitted to rely on a defence under the Statute of Limitation which would otherwise be available to him.

3

The facts are largely not in dispute. The plaintiff, who was riding his motor bicycle at the time, was involved in a collision with a motor car the property of the first named defendant at Furbo Bridge in Co. Galway on the26th April 1995. The plaintiff sustained injuries in the collision and his motor bicycle was damaged. On the 23rd May, 1995, his solicitors wrote to the first and second named defendant claiming that the accident was the result of her having driven out from a side road in front of the plaintiff and stating that he was claiming damages against her. She was asked to pass the letter on to her insurers.

4

The latter - Hibernian Insurance - wrote on the 11th July 1995 to the plaintiff's solicitors a letter headed "withoutprejudice". The remaining letters from them to the plaintiff's solicitors in the sequence of correspondence which followed were, with one exception, similarly headed. In the letter of 11th July, the insurance company raised a number of queries with the plaintiff's solicitor, such as the negligence alleged against their insured, the injuries alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff, an estimate for repairs to the motor bicycle etc. The letter ended:-

"On receipt of your reply and when our own investigation has been concluded, we shall advise you immediately as to our decision on liability. The above requests are made without prejudice to liability on our insured's part."

5

The plaintiff's solicitors replied on the 1st September 1995 giving the information requested. Arrangements were also made for a medical examination by the insurance company's doctor of the plaintiff.

6

On the 9th July, 1996, the insurance company wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors as follows:-

"With regard to the above matter we refer to previous correspondence and confirm that we have obtained a medical report on your client."

"We have concluded the damage claim direct with your client's insurers, Norwich Union."

"Please advise if you are in a position to discuss settlement at this time."

7

"We await hearing from you."

8

The plaintiff's solicitor replied on the 24th July 1996, stating that they were awaiting an appointment for an up-to-date medical report and, as soon it came to hand, would be in touch with the insurancecompany.

9

On the 13th March 1997, the insurance company wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors as follows:-

"With regard to the above matter we refer to previouscorrespondence."

"Please advise if you are interested in discussing the case with us at this time."

10

"We look forward to hearing from you."

11

No reply was apparently received to that letter and they wrote again on the 30th October 1997 as follows:-

"We refer to the above and to previous correspondence in connection with same."

"Could you please advise if you are in a position to meet for settlement discussions at the October Galway High Court or alternatively the February 1998 Galway High Court."

12

There was also correspondence between the insurance company and the plaintiff's solicitor concerning an abortive medical examination, which it is unnecessary to refer to in detail. On the 27th January 1998, the insurance company wrote as follows:-

"Could you please advise if you are in a position to meet for discussions at the forthcoming Galway High Court."

13

That letter was apparently also not replied to and they wrote again on the 2nd July 1998 as follows:-

"Could you please advise if you are in a position to meet for without prejudice talks at the forthcoming Galway High Courtsessions."

"We have tried to phone your office on a number of times in relation to this matter but have been unable to getthrough."

14

It should be noted that, at the stage when that letter was written, the limitation period of three years within which proceedings had to be instituted under the Statute of Limitations, 1957, had expired.

15

On the 30th April 1999, the plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the insurance company and asked them to nominate a solicitor to accept service of proceedings. These proceedings were then instituted by way of a plenary summons on the 11th December 1998. A statement of claim was delivered onthe 11th June 1999 and in their defence delivered on the 14th July 1999, the defendants pleaded that the action was now statute barred by virtue of the provisions of s. 11 (2)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957 (as amended). In addition to a joinder of issue, the plaintiff's reply contained the following plea:-

"(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing the conduct and representations express and implied of the defendants herein, their servants or agents, from the time of notification of the motor collision of the 26th April 1995 up to the commencement of proceedings herein by plenary summons dated 11th December 1998 caused and induced the plaintiff to refrain from issuing proceedings within the period prescribed by statute."

"(4) By reason of the aforementioned conduct of the defendants, their servants or agents, the defendants are estopped from relying on the provisions of the Statute of Limitations 1957 aspleaded."

16

A preliminary issue was then directed to be tried as to

"whether the plaintiff's claim herein is or is not statute barred by virtue of the provisions of s. 11 (2)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957 (asamended)."

17

That issue was heard by Kelly J. in the High Court. He said that he considered that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Creedon v Depuy International Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 Diciembre 2018
    ...as a defence. The Plaintiff cites Traynor v. Fagan [1985] IR 586, Doran v. Thompson & Sons Limited [1978] 1 IR 223, Ryan v. Connolly [2001] 1 IR 627 and Murphy v. Grealish [2009] 3 IR 366 in support of this. As the absence of a PIAB authorisation was considered a jurisdictional bar in Mu......
  • Tyrrell v Wright
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 28 Septiembre 2018
    ...in Doran v. Thompson and Sons Limited was followed by the Supreme Court in the single judgment of Keane C.J. in Ryan v. Connolly [2001] 1 I.R. 627; [2001] 2 I.L.R.M. 174. The dictum of Griffin J. in Doran was acknowledged by Keane C.J. in William Bennett Construction Ltd. v. Greene [2004......
  • O'Connor (plaintiff) v P. Elliott and Company Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 Marzo 2010
    ...COUNCIL v AMOS 1987 1 AER 340 1986 1 WLR 1271 O'FLANAGAN v RAY-GER LTD & ORS UNREP COSTELLO 28.4.1983 1983/11/3316 RYAN v CONNOLLY 2001 1 IR 627 2001 2 ILRM 174 2001/21/5755 CUTTS v HEAD & ANOR 1984 CH 290 1984 2 WLR 349 1984 1 AER 597 MCGRATH EVIDENCE 2005 PARA 10.112 MCGRATH EVIDENCE 200......
  • Bank of Scotland Plc v David Kennedy
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 11 Septiembre 2013
    ...OF SCOTLAND PLC PLAINTIFF AND DAVID KENNEDY DEFENDANT DORAN v THOMAS THOMPSON & SONS LTD 1978 IR 223 1979 113 ILTR 93 RYAN v CONNOLLY 2001 1 IR 627 2001 2 ILRM 174 2001/21/5755 INDUSTRIAL YARNS LTD v GREENE & MANLEY 1984 ILRM 15 1983/2/526 DALY v MIN FOR THE MARINE & ORS 2001 3 IR 513 2001......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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