The High Court ruled that Augustin Mamba could not prosecute claims in his proceedings against IBM Ireland Products Distribution Limited and Martina O’Looney to the extent those claims fell within the employee negligence or breach of duty category covered by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. Claims falling within another category covered by the Act were not subject to its authorisation requirement when the proceedings began and could continue.
The judgment, delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy on 15 January 2010, concerned a preliminary issue about proceedings issued on 8 June 2004. Mamba had begun the case in person. He applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board in January 2005 and received an authorisation on 4 February 2005 concerning “harassment and bullying at work”. The Board said it would not assess the claim because the injuries were wholly psychological.
The defendants argued that the personal injury aspect could not proceed because Mamba had issued the plenary summons without first obtaining the Board’s authorisation, as required by section 12(1) of the 2003 Act for claims within the relevant statutory categories then in force. Mamba’s submissions included that he had not been guided about the requirement and that barring his claim would impair access to the courts. At the hearing, his counsel also argued that claims based on breach of contract fell within a separate category that was not yet operative when the summons issued.
The court held that the later authorisation could not be relied on in these proceedings. It said section 12(1) applied on 8 June 2004 to employee claims for negligence or breach of duty, but not to the Act’s other categories that had not yet come into operation. Accordingly, any of Mamba’s claims within the employee category could not be prosecuted in these proceedings; claims within the separate category could proceed.
The court did not decide which specific claims fell into either category. It said the parties’ submissions had not sufficiently analysed the statutory wording, and the basis of Mamba’s claims under the Equality Acts was unclear, including whether they alleged breach of contract or breach of statutory duty. It also did not decide whether Mamba should be allowed to amend his statement of claim or whether any continuing claims were time-barred. The judge suggested the parties try to agree amendments to the claim and defence, and said she would hear further submissions, if needed, on how the case should proceed.