The High Court has struck out a personal injury claim against a cleaning contractor added to proceedings nearly three years after an alleged fall at Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital Crumlin.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 14 November 2019, concerned an alleged workplace accident on 11 June 2016. Shauna Reilly claimed that matter on the hospital floor caused her to slip and fall, and alleged defects in the cleaning system. Those allegations were not determined in this judgment.
ISS Ireland Limited, trading as ISS Facility Services, accepted that it had been the contract cleaner at the hospital from 1 February 2015 to 31 January 2018. It argued that the delay in notifying and joining it had seriously prejudiced its ability to defend the claim. It said it had received its first notice of the alleged accident around 20 February 2019, had no record of it, and would have difficulty accessing cleaning schedules, staff rotas and other relevant documents after its contract ended.
The original personal injury summons issued in November 2017 and did not name ISS. In February 2018, the plaintiff received a letter from the second defendant stating that it had not provided cleaning services at the location on the date in question. Further letters in March and December 2018 sought confirmation that the claim against that company would be discontinued. The court found that these letters put the plaintiff on notice that she might have sued the wrong party and that she should have investigated who the correct defendant was.
After a further letter on 30 January 2019, the plaintiff sought another authorisation from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. In March 2019, an order removed the second defendant and added ISS. An amended summons issued in April and was served on ISS later that month.
The plaintiff argued that ISS could seek relevant documents from the other defendants. The judge rejected that submission, finding it unfair to expect a late-added defendant to rely on records held by co-defendants whose interests might differ and whose investigations might not match the defence ISS could have prepared if sued earlier.
The court accepted that a person may reasonably need time to identify the correct defendant, but said that time should be limited to what is reasonably needed to make appropriate inquiries. It found inordinate and inexcusable delay in pursuing the claim against ISS and held that the balance of justice favoured striking out the proceedings against that company. The order was limited to the claim against ISS; the judgment did not determine the underlying injury allegations.