The High Court has allowed Bus Átha Cliath, also known as Dublin Bus, to be joined as a defendant in a personal injury action arising from an alleged 1997 collision in Dublin. The court did not decide whether the claim is time-barred or express a view on any defence the newly added defendant may raise.
The plaintiff, Lynn Kinlon, alleges she was struck by a bus while cycling at Arran Quay on 1 August 1997. Proceedings issued in July 2000 named Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE) as defendant. The three-year limitation period had expired by then for any other potential defendant.
In December 2003, the plaintiff sought to replace CIE with Bus Átha Cliath. The Master of the High Court refused that application on 5 February 2004. The plaintiff then brought a motion seeking, among other relief, to set aside that decision and substitute Bus Átha Cliath. On 7 March 2005, Mr Justice O’Neill first granted an extension of time to appeal the Master’s order, then heard the remaining applications.
The plaintiff’s side argued that the wrong defendant had been named through a bona fide mistake about its description, and that the intended defendant’s identity had been apparent. The judge rejected reliance on an English rule that permits certain party-name corrections after a limitation period: the Irish Superior Courts rules contained no equivalent provision allowing that kind of correction after time had expired.
The judge considered separately whether Bus Átha Cliath could be joined under the Irish rules despite the possible limitation defence. He reviewed differing authorities, including the Supreme Court’s decisions in O’Reilly v. Granville and Allied Irish Coal Supplies Ltd. v. Powell Duffryn International Fuels Ltd. He preferred the reasoning in O’Reilly, concluding that there was no established rule preventing joinder whenever a limitation defence might be available. Such a defence must be pleaded, he said, and the court should not assume in advance that it would be raised or succeed.
The court therefore ordered that Bus Átha Cliath be joined as a defendant. It did not determine the merits of the alleged negligence, whether the limitation defence applies, or whether that defence would succeed. The judgment expressly left those matters open.