The High Court dismissed Stephen Domican’s claim against AXA Insurance Limited over the insurer sending him copies of correspondence about his injury claim despite his written request that communications go through his solicitors.
The court heard both sides’ motions as the trial of the action. Domican had sought an injunction to stop AXA contacting him directly and an order requiring it to follow his written authority. AXA sought dismissal, arguing that the claim disclosed no stateable cause of action or was frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process and bound to fail.
Domican said he was injured in a road accident on Collinstown Road, Clondalkin, on 17 July 2005, and attributed his injuries to the negligence of Patrick Doyle, an AXA insured. The judgment records that AXA’s obligation to indemnify Doyle was not disputed. Domican’s solicitors wrote to Doyle and AXA on 28 August 2006, including his authority asking AXA not to contact him directly. He applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) on 15 September; PIAB confirmed the application was complete on 29 September. The claim was then frozen as far as court proceedings were concerned, but settlement remained possible.
AXA sent correspondence about potential settlement to Domican’s solicitors and copied him. The judge noted that this breached Domican’s request. He also criticised AXA’s handling of a medical appointment arranged without first securing Domican’s agreement, and described the tone of a later letter about the missed appointment as unfortunate. The judgment said the letter did not, on careful reading, threaten to make Domican pay the costs. It also described as suspicious that an offer letter had been copied to Domican without his solicitors being told, as AXA said, through oversight. The evidence did not establish whether this was part of a deliberate practice.
The court considered claims based on privacy, nuisance, harassment and interference with the solicitor-client relationship. It rejected the privacy and other civil-wrong grounds on the facts before it. It held that a claimant may restrain conduct that materially or significantly interferes with access to legal advice, but found that copying a small number of largely routine letters did not meet that threshold. The judge was not satisfied that AXA’s general statement about possible PIAB delays materially undermined the advice Domican had received to await an assessment.
The ruling was limited to these facts. The judge said that correspondence designed or likely to undermine the solicitor-client relationship, or communication that was excessive or differently handled, could lead to a different result. The claim was dismissed; the judgment does not record a separate order granting AXA’s requested dismissal on its stated grounds.