The High Court has ruled that a defendant in a road accident injury claim was not prevented from relying on a statute-bar defence after the plaintiff’s application to the Injuries Board was made outside the two-year limitation period.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Bernard Barton on 7 April 2017, concerned a collision on Business Park Road in Letterkenny on 21 September 2011. The plaintiff, Teresa McFadden, sued Andrea Neuhold. The parties agreed to have the limitation issue tried as a preliminary issue.
The court heard that Ms McFadden first consulted a solicitor on 23 May 2013, after direct discussions with the defendant’s insurer, initially Quinn and later Liberty Insurance. She had considered a proposed payment of €20,000 plus expenses insufficient. Her solicitor knew of the two-year limit and that an application to the Injuries Board could stop time running. The deadline was 20 September 2013, but the application was made on 11 October and acknowledged as complete on 14 October. Liberty rejected it as statute barred.
In a letter dated 22 July 2013, Liberty said it was investigating the incident, invited the solicitor to agree a settlement timeframe and costs if liability was not an issue, and said the claim could proceed to assessment by the Board if those terms were not acceptable. The solicitor described the letter as a “letter of comfort”. He also testified that he had been told by the Board that the application required a medical report and could not be made without one. The judge found that advice was incorrect: an application could have been made without the report for limitation purposes. The judgment concluded that the failure to apply in time did not fall at the defendant’s feet.
Ms McFadden argued that Liberty’s conduct was unconscionable and dishonest and that it should be estopped from relying on the time bar. The defendant submitted that negotiations had ended without agreement, there was ample time to apply, and no clear promise had been made that the limitation defence would not be used.
The judge found the insurer’s July letter ambiguous on liability and said the solicitor should have sought clarity and, absent a satisfactory reply, applied to the Board before the deadline. The court also found that negotiations had become dormant and the solicitor remained responsible for ensuring a timely application. It concluded that Liberty’s conduct could be criticised but was not unconscionable or dishonest, and that the plaintiff had not proved an estoppel.
The court ordered that the defendant was not estopped from relying on the plea that the claim was statute barred. The preliminary ruling addressed that defence only; the judgment did not determine liability for the collision or the amount, if any, of damages.