The High Court has refused Alstom Transport Ireland Ltd’s request to dismiss a personal injury claim brought by Leila Anglade over a fall at a Luas crossing, finding that the claim against the company was not statute barred on the basis argued in its motion.
Mr Justice Barr ruled that Ms Anglade’s knowledge that Alstom might have responsibility for maintaining the crossing arose in July 2022 at the earliest. She issued an amended personal injury summons naming Alstom as a defendant on 6 December 2022, within five months of that date, the court said.
The proceedings arise from an accident on 16 January 2018. Ms Anglade alleges she tripped and fell while crossing the Luas tracks at the pedestrian crossing at Milltown Luas stop on Richmond Avenue South, Dublin 6, because of its unsafe condition. The judgment does not determine the underlying negligence claim.
Alstom argued that the claim against it was brought too late. It relied on a letter sent by Ms Anglade’s former solicitors in December 2018 to seven entities, including Alstom, and on a 2020 Personal Injuries Assessment Board authorisation naming those entities. Alstom said these showed that the plaintiff knew, or should have made inquiries about, its possible involvement earlier.
The judge found the 2018 letter showed only a vague understanding of possible maintenance arrangements and expressly said the solicitors did not know which recipients were appropriate respondents. Alstom did not reply, and the court was not satisfied that the letter gave Ms Anglade or her advisers knowledge of its potential liability or put them on a specific inquiry.
The first defendant, Transdev Dublin Light Rail Ltd, was sued in August 2020 and later blamed the second defendant, Transport Infrastructure Ireland. After being joined to the case, Transport Infrastructure Ireland delivered a defence in July 2022 blaming Alstom and identifying a maintenance contract. The court accepted that Ms Anglade could not realistically have learned of that contract before receiving the defence and an affidavit from Clara Cassidy that month.
The court found Ms Anglade acted reasonably in seeking to join Alstom and then promptly issuing the amended summons. It concluded that the action against Alstom was not statute barred under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991.
The order was limited to the limitation dispute: the court directed that whether the claim was statute barred be tried as a preliminary issue, and refused Alstom’s request in its motion to dismiss the claim on that ground. The judgment does not resolve the preliminary issue or the merits of the injury claim.