The High Court has refused an application by the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) to dismiss a personal injuries claim arising from a 2014 crash in County Leitrim. The court held that the MIBI did not have to be the sole defendant from the outset of the proceedings, provided it was the sole defendant when its involvement was considered.
The claim concerns a crash on or about 7 February 2014 on the Sligo to Manorhamilton Road near Difreen, Gleancar. The plaintiff, Aron Cranney, alleges that oil or fuel on the road caused him to lose control of his vehicle. He also pleaded that the collision was caused or contributed to by the negligence of Dermot Healy, whose legal personal representative was named as a defendant, and by Leitrim County Council’s alleged failure to keep the road clear. These are allegations in the summons, not findings in this judgment.
The summons was issued in January 2017. The MIBI was served in January 2018 and entered an appearance later that month. By the hearing of the MIBI’s motion, notices discontinuing the proceedings against the second and third defendants had been served, leaving the MIBI as the only defendant.
The MIBI asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the proceedings disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were bound to fail. In the alternative, it said the plaintiff had not complied with clause 2.3 of the MIBI Agreement, which addresses claims involving the owner or user of a vehicle. It argued that joining the MIBI as a co-defendant had made the proceedings defective from the start and that later discontinuances could not correct the problem.
The plaintiff’s counsel accepted that joining the MIBI as a co-defendant was a technical fault, but argued that dismissal should not follow because the MIBI was now in the position it would have occupied had separate proceedings been brought. The plaintiff also relied on the interests of justice.
Justice Meenan considered the Supreme Court’s decision in *O’Flynn v Buckley*. He concluded that clause 2.3 envisages the MIBI being the sole defendant when its role in representing an unidentified or untraced motorist is considered; it does not require the MIBI to have been the sole defendant when proceedings began. As the discontinuances had left the MIBI as sole defendant, the court found the arrangement complied with the clause.
The court therefore ruled that the MIBI was not entitled to the relief it sought. The judgment did not determine the underlying personal injuries claim or assess compensation.