Sun v Price

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 19 April 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 201
• Docket Number: 2017 No. 6720 P
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 April 2018

[2018] IEHC 201

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2017 No. 6720 P

Between:

BIN SUN

Plaintiff

– and –

JASON PRICE

and

JOHN PRICE

Defendants

Tort – Personal injuries – Award of damages – Breach of time limit – Notice of motion – O.63, r.9 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended – Joinder of insurance party

Facts: The insurance company sought an order for extending time for the bringing of an appeal against the decision of the Master and an order that the company be joined as a co-defendant in the within proceedings. The insurance company also sought an order setting aside the decision of the Master for refusing the company to be joined as a co-defendant in the proceedings and an order for granting leave to the company to file a defence or such other documents as to the Court. The plaintiff objected to the joinder of the insurance company as a co-defendant.

Mr. Justice Max Barrett allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Master and also permitted the insurance company for joining the present proceedings as a co-defendant. The Court held that it did not appear to the Court, when it came to the within appeal, that the insurance company was in breach of the time limit as identified in o.63, r. 9 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, as amended, and thus, there was no need for seeking the extension of time. The Court held that it would discuss with the parties the ongoing management of the proceedings. The Court held that the insurance company had a proprietary or pecuniary interest in the present matter.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 19th April, 2018.

1 The claim at the heart of the within proceedings concerns an alleged road traffic accident which is alleged to have occurred on or about 5th February, 2016, at or near the Dublin Road in the City of Limerick. It is claimed that Mr Sun was travelling as a passenger in a motor vehicle being driven by a Mr Woodland which was allegedly collided into from the rear by a vehicle owned by Mr Jason Price and allegedly being driven by Mr John Price.

2 At the time of the alleged accident, Mr Jason Price was the holder of a policy of insurance with Bump Insurance; Mr John Price was a named driver on that policy. Bump has apparently conducted an investigation into the accident and has a number of concerns in relation to the alleged accidental nature of the incident from which the claim arises. Based on that investigation, Bump has decided to refuse the provision of an indemnity to the defendants in respect of the alleged accident.

3 Bump wishes to bring various matters to the attention of the court of trial in the within proceedings which, it considers, may be of assistance to the court in reaching a determination in respect of the events at the heart of the within proceedings. For example, Bump alleges that (a) some of the occupants in each of the vehicles are known to each other; and (b) Mr John Price is a lifelong friend of Mr Woodland, the driver of the vehicle in which Mr Sun was travelling.

4 Bump is concerned that if Mr Sun is successful in his action, he will then invoke the provisions of s.76 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 against Bump so as to seek of it any amount that is awarded against the existing defendants. Bump therefore seeks to be joined to the within proceedings, having previously made a failed application in this regard before the Master, which failed application has prompted the within appeal. More particularly, Bump seeks the following reliefs by way of notice of motion: (i) if necessary, an...