The High Court has struck out Pauline Mulrooney’s claim for damages over an alleged assault, finding that the personal injuries proceedings were brought outside the applicable limitation period and that a proposed change in procedure came too late.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Robert Eagar on 2 December 2019, concerned an alleged incident on 9 August 2011 on Main Street, Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary. Ms Mulrooney alleged that Victor Shee verbally abused her, grabbed her left shoulder and struck her while she was a passenger in her son’s car. She claimed physical and psychological injuries. These were allegations, not findings on whether an assault occurred.
A personal injuries summons was issued on 14 February 2017. Mr Shee applied to strike out the claim, arguing that it was statute barred. His application also raised procedural objections under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. Ms Mulrooney argued that the claim could be amended to plead trespass to the person, which she said would allow it to proceed under a different limitation period. Her counsel also argued that the procedural error had caused no prejudice to the defendant.
The judge rejected the defendant’s argument that the summons should be struck out for failing to comply with section 10 of the 2004 Act. However, he found that the claim, as brought for personal injuries, was subject to a two-year limitation period. He concluded that Ms Mulrooney knew of the significance of her injuries on the date of the alleged incident, citing her attendance at her GP that day and a letter she sent to a Garda superintendent.
The judge ruled that the Personal Injuries Assessment Board application, made on 4 April 2016, did not affect the limitation issue in these proceedings. The summons was issued in February 2017, more than two years after the alleged assault.
The court also considered Ms Mulrooney’s request to treat the case as if it had been commenced by plenary summons, the procedure the judgment said applied to a trespass claim. The judge distinguished an earlier case in which a wrongly used personal injuries summons had been allowed to proceed: here, the proposed change was sought after the six-year limitation period for plenary proceedings expired on 9 August 2017. No plenary summons had been issued within that period.
The court therefore granted the defendant’s application and struck out the plaintiff’s claim as manifestly statute barred. It did not determine whether the alleged assault occurred or decide the underlying allegations on their merits.