The High Court has set aside a third-party notice brought by Volkswagen defendants against Currid Motors Limited, finding it was not served as soon as reasonably possible and that the plaintiff’s discontinuance of her claim against the motor dealer amounted to an accord and release.
The ruling arose from a personal injuries action brought by Tammy Harte. She claims that her Volkswagen Passat rolled backwards after she parked it and engaged the electronic brake, striking and injuring her on 22 February 2016. Those are allegations in the underlying action; the judgment did not determine the accident claim.
Harte issued proceedings in 2018 against Volkswagen Group Ireland Limited, Volkswagen Ireland, Volkswagen AG and Currid Motors Limited. She discontinued her claim against Currid Motors in September 2020, after an agreement that the company would bear its own costs. The Volkswagen defendants later obtained leave to bring Currid Motors back into the case as a third party, seeking contribution or indemnity.
Currid Motors sought to set aside the notice on two grounds: delay and the effect of the discontinuance. The court found the defendants waited more than seven months after the 28-day period under the court rules to issue their motion. It rejected their reliance on COVID-19 lockdowns, saying they had not explained how lockdown caused the delay. It also rejected the argument that the delay was less significant because Currid Motors had previously been a defendant and knew about the proceedings. The statutory question was whether service was reasonably prompt, not whether the third party had suffered prejudice.
The judge also considered Currid Motors’ separate argument that the discontinuance was a release. The defendants disputed that it had this effect and relied on the court rules, as well as concerns about recovering costs from the plaintiff. The judge found the agreement to discontinue in return for Currid Motors bearing its own costs constituted an accord and release. Applying the Civil Liability Act and relevant appeal decisions, she concluded the defendants could not pursue contribution from Currid Motors through the third-party notice.
The court therefore granted the applications and set aside the notice on both grounds. It did not decide liability for the alleged accident or make a final costs order. Its indicative view was that Currid Motors should receive its costs, limited to one motion rather than two. The parties could make further submissions, and the matter was listed for mention on 12 July 2023.