The High Court has allowed solicitors acting for an event organiser to come off record in a personal injuries action, after the organiser’s insurer said it would no longer provide an indemnity because a €2,500 policy excess had not been paid.
The order followed a motion by O’Brien Lynam, solicitors for the second defendant, RMC Leisure Limited trading as Event Works. The plaintiff opposed the application. The first defendant, Ernst & Young Limited, took a neutral position.
The proceedings concern an alleged incident on 11 April 2014. According to an affidavit grounding the motion, the plaintiff was working for Ernst & Young and was required to attend a sporting event at Belvedere Rugby Club in Ballsbridge, Dublin. The event was being organised by Event Works. The plaintiff alleges he was required to run backwards on an uneven surface, tripped and fell, and suffered personal injuries and loss.
The organiser’s insurer, Syndicate 1991 at Lloyd’s, had instructed the solicitors. Its application was based on the organiser’s failure to pay an excess of €2,500 after a demand in February 2017. The insurer’s position was that payment was required under the policy. The plaintiff disputed that the policy wording made payment a condition precedent to indemnity and argued that the insurer had not established a right to repudiate cover. Those arguments concerned the insurance dispute; the court did not determine whether the insurer was entitled to repudiate the policy.
The plaintiff also argued that allowing the solicitors to withdraw could cause prejudice. Ernst & Young had filed a defence denying liability and served a notice of indemnity against Event Works. The plaintiff’s solicitor raised the possibility that Ernst & Young might have an interest under the policy and could choose to pay the excess, but acknowledged there was insufficient information to make a definitive argument on that point.
Justice Faherty applied the principles governing applications by solicitors to come off record. She held that the court’s role on this motion was not to decide whether the insurer had correctly repudiated liability. The second defendant did not appear to contest the application, and the insurer’s counsel told the court it would pay the plaintiff’s costs to date and the costs of the motion if the order were made.
The court granted the motion on those terms. The ruling concerns the solicitors’ status in the proceedings and does not decide the plaintiff’s underlying injury claim or liability for the alleged incident.