The High Court has refused an application to transfer a personal injury case to Limerick Circuit Court, finding that the interests of justice required the claim to remain in the High Court.
The motion concerned a road crash on 1 December 2013. The plaintiff alleged he was a front-seat passenger in a car that struck another vehicle and that he suffered injuries. The first defendant, Ryan Investments trading as Hertz Rent a Car, owned the vehicle, and the second defendant, Martin Puce, was its driver, according to evidence before the court. The first defendant’s defence alleged that the crash was caused deliberately by the second defendant as part of a fraudulent enterprise. Those allegations were not determined in this judgment.
The plaintiff issued the High Court personal injury proceedings in November 2015. A separate claim arose from a second crash in May 2015. In replies in that case, the plaintiff said he had recovered from the injuries from the first crash before the second occurred, while also claiming the later crash exacerbated those earlier injuries. The second set of proceedings was settled.
Justice Heslin said the plaintiff did not apply to transfer the first case after those replies were provided in June 2017, despite subsequent discovery proceedings, a notice of trial and the case being listed for hearing in Limerick. The judge noted that the transfer motion was not issued until April 2020. The plaintiff’s affidavit did not explain the delays, including why an application mentioned in 2019 and again in February 2020 was not brought then.
The plaintiff sought transfer on the basis that the available medical evidence did not support damages beyond the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction and that Limerick was a more suitable and convenient forum because the crash occurred there. The first defendant opposed an unconditional transfer and sought four costs orders, including a differential costs order reflecting the difference between High Court and Circuit Court costs, and costs relating to the abandoned loss of earnings claim.
The judge declined to decide those costs issues on the transfer motion. He said a trial judge would be better placed to assess costs after hearing the evidence and deciding liability and damages. The court also considered that the case was ready for trial and that transferring it would offer little prospect of reducing costs at that stage.
Justice Heslin refused the relief sought and made no alternative transfer order. The judgment did not decide liability or the amount of any damages. It left the costs questions for consideration at the conclusion of the trial.