The High Court has allowed RSA Insurance Ireland Limited to join a personal injuries case as a notice party, after the insurer sought to raise an alleged fraud defence. The ruling decides who may participate in the proceedings; it does not determine whether the accident or injury claim was fraudulent.
The case was brought by Celine McDonagh against her brother, John McDonagh. She alleges that she was injured on 18 November 2012 while a passenger in his car, when it collided with the rear of a stationary vehicle on the Tullamore to Mountmellick Road. The judgment records that she began Circuit Court proceedings in November 2013.
RSA, the defendant’s insurer, refused to indemnify him, citing what it described as material inconsistencies in accounts of the accident. It sought to join the proceedings so it could plead fraud. In a supplemental affidavit, an RSA investigator said John McDonagh had stated that he did not know the driver of the other vehicle. A private investigator’s affidavit said the plaintiff had been in a relationship with that driver for 12 years and had a child with him, and that the driver had delivered a person to the defendant’s address in March 2014. These were matters presented in support of the insurer’s application, not findings that the court made about the alleged fraud.
The defendant opposed joinder, arguing that RSA’s interest was remote unless and until the plaintiff obtained judgment and sought to enforce it against the insurer under section 76 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The defendant also argued that RSA could raise evidence of fraud at that later stage. Alternatively, the defendant said that if RSA were added, it should be a notice party rather than a co-defendant.
President of the High Court Peter Kearns said a plaintiff is ordinarily entitled to choose whom to sue, and that overriding that choice requires exceptional circumstances. He found that RSA’s financial interests could be affected if judgment were entered against the defendant and enforcement against the insurer were later sought. He also accepted that there was a real risk the existing defendant would not advance the fraud defence and that the affidavits showed an arguable basis for the allegation at this stage.
The court concluded that adding RSA would help the case proceed efficiently and avoid the costs of a later section 76 application. It granted the application, but added RSA as a notice party, not as a defendant. The ruling did not decide the personal injuries claim or the fraud allegation.