The High Court ruled that a personal injury claim by electrician Paul Kiernan was not statute-barred, holding that the limitation period was paused from 27 May 2009, when the Personal Injuries Assessment Board received his application by fax, until six months after it issued an authorisation.
Quebec Construction Limited, the second defendant, had asked the court to dismiss the claim as out of time or, alternatively, have limitation determined as a preliminary issue. The judgment, delivered by Michael White J on 23 November 2011, dealt with the motion because no facts were in dispute.
Kiernan’s personal injury summons alleged that negligence caused him injury while he was working as an electrician on a building site at Pimm Street, Dublin, on 11 June 2007. J. Brunkard Electrical Limited, his employer and the electrical contractor on the site, was the first defendant. Quebec Construction was the main contractor.
The court found that Kiernan’s date of knowledge was the accident date, 11 June 2007. It rejected his contention that the date was 2 July 2007, when a company search showed Quebec Construction’s registered office and limited liability status. White J said Kiernan already knew it was a Quebec Construction site, and the search added only that company information.
The parties disagreed about when the application for the purposes of the statutory limitation pause had been made. The Board received a faxed application form and medical report, with a copy of the cheque, on 27 May 2009. It later said the application was complete on 29 May. The Board issued an authorisation on 19 August 2009, which the solicitors received the next day.
Quebec Construction relied on a rule that treated an application as made when the Board acknowledged in writing receipt of a complete application. The court found a conflict between that rule and the governing Act, and said the Act took precedence. It held that the essential parts of the application were in place when the fax was successfully delivered on 27 May; the original cheque had also been sent by registered post that day.
The court therefore calculated the period to be disregarded as running from 27 May 2009 to 19 February 2010, six months after the authorisation was issued. It identified 11 June 2007 as the date the limitation period began. The judgment resolves the limitation issue raised by the motion; it does not determine the underlying negligence claim.