The Court of Appeal has allowed a prison officer’s appeal against a High Court ruling that his personal injury claim was statute barred, and remitted the limitation issue to the High Court for rehearing as part of a unitary trial. It did not decide whether the claim is ultimately in time or determine liability for the alleged workplace injury.
Robert Mullins claims he injured his back while helping to remove a prisoner from a cell at Cloverhill Prison on 8 January 2013. He alleges the Irish Prison Service, the Minister for Justice and Equality, and Ireland were responsible through negligence or breach of duty. Those allegations have not been determined.
Mullins applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board in September 2015. After the defendants did not consent to an assessment, the Board authorised court proceedings. He issued a plenary summons in March 2016. The defendants argued that the claim was out of time under the limitation laws. In December 2017, the High Court refused to dismiss it at that stage but directed that the time-limit question be tried as a preliminary issue. In July 2018, the High Court found the claim statute barred and dismissed it.
The dispute concerned when Mullins first knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that his injury was significant. He had a pre-existing back condition and initially treated the pain after the incident as a flare-up. The High Court relied on a finding that he knew of a significant injury by the date of the incident or, at the latest, October 2013. The Court of Appeal said that alternative finding was contradictory and the trial judge had wrongly understood evidence about his worsening condition as referring to October 2013; the evidence indicated August to October 2014.
The appeal court found no credible evidence that Mullins knew on the day of the incident that he had sustained a significant injury. It also found no basis to conclude that he could reasonably have known that from observable facts that day. His symptoms progressively worsened, and by August or October 2014 he had difficulty walking and sought further medical advice. The court said the trial judge could have found that he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, the injury was significant by then. The full extent of the injury after surgery was not the test.
Because of ambiguity and confusion in the High Court findings, the Court of Appeal remitted the limitation issue for rehearing as part of a unitary trial. The appeal court’s judgment proposed that Mullins receive his appeal and lower-court costs, subject to either party applying within 14 days for a further hearing on costs; the judgment said a final order would follow if no such application was made.