Ward v O'Callaghan & Mibi

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Morris
• Judgment Date: 25 February 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] IEHC 16
• Docket Number: Record No.3081p/1994
• Court: High Court
• Date: 25 February 1998

[1998] IEHC 16

THE HIGH COURT

Record No.3081p/1994

WARD v. O'CALLAGHAN & MIBI

BETWEEN

AMANDA WARD

PLAINTIFF

AND

PETER O'CALLAGHAN AND MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU OFIRELAND

DEFENDANT

AND

MIKE MURPHY INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED

THIRD PARTY

Citations:

RSC O.16 r8(3)

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 S27(1)(b)

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Morrisdelivered the 25 day of February, 1998.

2 This is an application brought by the Third Party in which it seeks, by Notice of Motion dated the 11th December, 1997, an Order pursuant to Order 16, Rule 8(3), of the Superior Court Rules, an Order setting aside the Order of this Court made on the 7th July, 1997 joining the Third Party as Third Party to these proceedings.

3 The facts insofar as they are relevant to the present application can be summarised as follows.

4 The Plaintiff in this action claims that she suffered personal injuries as a result of the negligent driving of a car owned by the First named Defendant, Mr. Peter O'Callaghan, which, it would appear, was uninsured at the time when it was involved in the accident. The circumstances in which it came to be uninsured are claimed by the First named Defendant to be as follows. He says in his Affidavit, grounding the application to join the Third Party, that he was driving his car on the 8th November, 1991 when he was in collision with the Plaintiff's car and as a result of this collision she suffered injuries. He says that he insured his car through the agency of the Third Party, Mike Murphy Insurance Brokers Limited, in October of 1991 and this insurance was placed with a Zurich Insurance Company. This policy of insurance was renewed on an annual basis through the agency of the Third Party. Due to an accident which the First named Defendant had, he was unable to drive his car and at his request the policy was suspended during his illness. Subsequently, when the First named Defendant had recovered he wished to reinstate the policy so he informed the Third Party in October 1991 by telephone that he wished to do so. He was told on that occasion that in order to renew the policy it would be necessary to have a medical report. He obtained the medical report and this was forwarded to the Zurich Insurance Company, however they replied that it was not a medical report which they required but an engineer's report (presumably on the First named Defendant's car). They would not reinstate the policy without this report. The First named Defendant says that he was never told by the Third Party of the necessity to obtain the engineer's report and it is alleged that the Third Party represented to the First named Defendant that his insurance policy had been reinstated and that he was covered to drive his car. He was involved in the accident shortly afterwards.Henow claims indemnity or contribution in respect of any sum that he is required to pay to the Plaintiff against the Third Party.

5 It is agreed by the parties that the Third Party is not a concurrent wrongdoer...