The High Court has ruled that Campbell Catering Ltd cannot rely on a statute of limitations defence to defeat a catering assistant’s personal injury claim, finding that the company’s insurer had admitted liability and continued trying to settle the claim as the deadline passed.
In a judgment delivered on 28 June 2022, Mr Justice Mark Heslin heard the matter de novo after the Circuit Court had ruled on 19 December 2020 that the claim was statute-barred and should be dismissed. The High Court found that the defendant was estopped from relying on that defence in the particular circumstances of the case.
The plaintiff, Lerato Tsiu, was described in the judgment as a catering assistant employed by Campbell Catering Ltd at the Royal Hospital, Donnybrook. Her claim concerned an incident pleaded to have happened on 4 December 2013, when a fellow employee allegedly pushed a trolley into her from behind, injuring her right ankle. The defendant’s defence admitted that she was injured in the course of her employment and that she did not have to prove the incident resulted from the defendant’s negligence or breach of duty.
The dispute concerned limitation. The judgment records that the relevant deadline for lodging a Form A with the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was 3 December 2015. The form was received on 8 December. A personal injuries summons was issued on 22 December 2016.
Zurich, the defendant’s insurer, emailed the plaintiff’s solicitors on 24 August 2015 to say its investigations were complete and “we will not be disputing liability”. It also sought a medical report to progress the claim. The insurer followed up in October and November. On 23 November, ten days before the Form A deadline, it said it was “Just looking for a copy medical and we’ll try to get the thing settled.” The court accepted for the hearing that no settlement meeting had been arranged and the insurer had not arranged a medical examination.
The plaintiff’s solicitor had received a medical report but sought corrections because it referred to the wrong ankle and gave an examination date before the accident. He did not lodge the Form A by the deadline, explaining that he believed liability was not in issue and was focused on obtaining a corrected report for settlement discussions.
On 22 December 2015, after learning the form had been received late, the insurer said the limitation period had expired and it would no longer discuss the claim. Justice Heslin concluded that the insurer’s repeated, unconditional communications about liability and settlement could reasonably have led the plaintiff’s solicitor to believe the limitation period would not be used to defeat the claim. He held that the defendant was estopped from relying on the limitation defence and that it would be unconscionable to permit reliance on it.
The judgment did not set out a final order or determine costs. It directed the parties to correspond about the appropriate form of order, including costs. The judge’s preliminary view was that costs should follow the event, with written submissions to be filed within 14 days if the parties could not agree.