The Supreme Court has ruled that Keith Byrne’s personal injury claim against Kathleen Hudson was time-barred, allowing her appeal from a High Court decision on a preliminary issue. The Court set aside that order, declared the claim against her time-barred and ordered that she be dismissed from the proceedings. It did not determine whether Byrne had a valid claim against her on its merits.
The proceedings arose from an incident on 17 July 1997 at a house on Windmill Road, Crumlin, Dublin. Byrne was visiting Alan Hudson, then about 15, when Alan’s adult brother, Patrick Hudson Junior, arrived. The judgment recounts evidence that Patrick Junior found a paint gun in Alan’s bedroom and fired it through a window. A paintball struck Byrne, seriously injuring him and leaving him effectively blind in one eye. The judgment identifies Patrick Junior as the person who allegedly fired the gun; the Supreme Court appeal concerned only the limitation issue relating to Kathleen Hudson.
Byrne initially sued Patrick Hudson Junior and Patrick Hudson Senior. Hudson Senior’s defence said he did not live at the house and that Kathleen Hudson owned and controlled it. She was joined as a defendant in 2001. The High Court held in 2004 that the claim against her was not time-barred, finding that her identity as an occupier became known around 20 September 2000 and that proceedings were brought within three years of that date.
On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the “date of knowledge” provisions in the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991. It relied on uncontroverted evidence that Byrne had visited the house repeatedly, had met Kathleen Hudson there, knew Alan lived with his mother, and knew Alan’s parents lived separately. The Court said the relevant facts about Kathleen Hudson’s occupation were observable or ascertainable by Byrne and, on the evidence, were actually known to him.
The Court held that the High Court judge erred in law by not taking account of Byrne’s direct knowledge when deciding whether the extended limitation period applied. It said that, in this case, the information needed to identify the appropriate defendant could have been given to his solicitor within days of the incident. The appeal therefore succeeded, and the claim against Kathleen Hudson cannot proceed.