The High Court has ruled that David Murphy’s personal injury claim against Denis Foley was time-barred, finding no evidence that the defendant or his insurer caused the deadline to be missed.
Mr Murphy’s claim arose from an incident on 25 June 2018. He pleaded that he was standing in a church car park after attending a funeral when a vehicle driven by Mr Foley struck him. The judgment does not determine that allegation of negligence; the court heard a preliminary issue about the limitation period.
The agreed chronology was that Mr Murphy’s former solicitors sent a letter of claim to the insurer, Allianz, on 22 November 2018. Allianz replied a week later, saying the case was under investigation and requesting information about the injuries and medical care. It did not admit liability or make a settlement proposal. The court found that no response to that request was provided before the deadline.
The limitation period expired on 24 June 2020. Mr Murphy applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) on 13 May 2021, and PIAB issued an authorisation in September 2021. The personal injuries proceedings followed in January 2022. The parties agreed there was no issue about the date of knowledge and that the proceedings were brought outside the statutory period.
Mr Murphy argued that it would be unconscionable or inequitable for Mr Foley to rely on the time limit. His submissions referred to other claims arising from the same incident, which his current solicitor said had been settled, and to alleged admissions of liability and ongoing discussions. The judge treated the account of the former solicitor’s advice as hearsay and found that the evidence did not establish when any alleged admission or discussions occurred, what was said, or that Mr Murphy relied on a representation by the defendant.
The judge found that the missed PIAB deadline resulted from an oversight by Mr Murphy’s former solicitors. The former firm did not provide an affidavit, and Mr Murphy did not swear one. The judge also found that the insurer’s request for information had gone unanswered and that the passage of time had prejudiced the defence, including by limiting the opportunity to obtain expert evidence about the injuries.
Mr Justice Heslin directed that the defendant was entitled to the relief sought on the preliminary issue. He found no estoppel, unconscionable conduct or other basis to prevent reliance on the limitation defence, and said the court had no discretion to extend the statutory period on the circumstances presented. The judgment records that the parties were invited to agree a draft order within 14 days, with written submissions to follow if they disputed its terms. The court said the normal rule on costs should apply because the defendant had succeeded.