The Court of Appeal has remitted to the High Court a limitation dispute over when Robert Mullins knew his alleged injury was significant for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2021, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the trial judge had identified 8 January 2013 as a possible date of knowledge and sometime in October 2013 as a possible outside date. The appeal court said both dates were necessarily wrong.
Barrett said that, except in an extreme case such as the loss of a limb, a person generally could not know on the date of an injury that it was significant for the purposes of the Act. He said the case before the court was not an extreme one.
The judgment also said the trial judge’s reference to October 2013 involved a misunderstanding of the factual evidence, in which October 2014 was “at play”. The appeal court did not determine the correct date of knowledge. It remitted the matter to the High Court because the dates selected by the trial judge could not stand.
Barrett said the appeal did not concern a misinterpretation of the meaning of “significant” in section 2. The court said the incorrect dates were sufficient to dispose of the appeal.