The Supreme Court has ruled that David Murphy’s personal injuries claim can continue despite being commenced outside the normal three-year limitation period.
Murphy was injured in a road accident on 12 May 2000 when Michael Grealish’s car drove into the rear of his stationary vehicle. Grealish’s insurers, Quinn Direct, corresponded with Murphy and later his solicitors about the claim.
The insurer initially agreed the cost of repairing Murphy’s vehicle. After being told that he had also suffered personal injuries, it requested information about his medical condition and indicated that it would not deal with the property and injury claims separately.
Correspondence continued while medical evidence was obtained. In December 2002, a regional claims manager wrote to Murphy’s solicitor asking whether medical reports could be shared and whether settlement could be discussed. The letter expressly stated that liability was not an issue.
Murphy’s solicitor later said he relied on those admissions and the ongoing settlement discussions and did not consider that the insurer would subsequently invoke the Statute of Limitations.
It was not until May 2004 that Quinn Direct said the proceedings had been issued outside the three-year period and that it would no longer deal with the claim.
The High Court rejected an attempt to have Murphy’s action dismissed as statute-barred. The Supreme Court has now upheld that decision.
Mr Justice Geoghegan distinguished the case from earlier authorities where insurers had not admitted liability. He held that an admission alone does not automatically allow a claimant to ignore a limitation period. Here, however, the admission formed part of a wider course of conduct involving medical exchanges and settlement discussions.
The court found that this conduct amounted to an implied representation on which Murphy’s solicitor had reasonably relied. It would therefore be inequitable to allow Grealish to resile from that position by pleading the statute.
The appeal was dismissed.