The High Court has refused to dismiss a former employee’s personal injury proceedings against Ladbrokes Payments (Ireland) Limited and Ladbrokes (Ireland), leaving the enforceability of a redundancy waiver and the statute of limitations to be decided by the trial judge as preliminary issues.
The decision, delivered by Ms Justice Bolger on 3 February 2022, concerned a claim by Philomena Hennessy, who worked as a customer service manager from April 1998 until her employment ended by redundancy on 11 August 2015. She signed a compromise waiver agreement on 17 July 2015. She later claimed that repetitive movements and awkward or unsuitable working conditions caused shoulder injuries.
The defendants argued that the waiver barred the claim, that it was out of time, and that delay meant the proceedings should be dismissed. The agreement stated that Hennessy would not bring claims relating to her employment or its termination. It also recorded that she had received independent legal advice and was unaware of circumstances that might give rise to a personal injury claim, except for claims raised in open correspondence.
In an affidavit, Hennessy said she had not received legal advice and felt pressured to sign. She described the agreement as being presented on a “take it or leave it” basis and said she was told another employee would be offered redundancy if she did not sign. The judge considered her account consistent with the absence of documents about negotiations. She held that the agreement alone did not establish that the claim must fail. Whether pressure affected the waiver’s enforceability should be decided after evidence is heard.
The defendants also argued that Hennessy knew of her shoulder injury and its connection to work more than two years before she applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board in April 2016. They relied on medical attendances from 2011 onwards and a January 2014 medical letter referring to symptoms worsening after long working hours. Hennessy disputed that she had then attributed her symptoms to her working conditions, and relied on an alleged change in those conditions around early 2014 and later deterioration.
The judge said the limitation issue could not fairly be decided on the affidavit evidence. The January 2014 letter did not clearly establish that Hennessy had attributed her complaints to work; evidence would be needed, and could be challenged. The trial judge will determine the issue as a preliminary matter.
On delay, the defendants cited four periods of inactivity, including gaps of 12 and 15 months, and argued that time could harm witnesses’ recollections. The judge was not satisfied that the delays were inordinate or that they created a substantial risk of an unfair trial or serious prejudice. She refused dismissal on that ground and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and Order 36, rule 12(b).
The ruling addressed the defendants’ interlocutory application to dismiss. It did not decide whether the injury claim succeeds: Hennessy still faces the waiver and limitation issues at trial.