The High Court has struck out Anne Marie Corrigan’s personal injury action against Aramark Ireland and Campbell Catering Limited, finding she had settled her claim with them for €15,000. The court refused Dublin City Council’s application to strike out the action against it.
Mr Justice Barr delivered judgment on 23 February 2023 on the defendants’ application to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process or as bound to fail. The court’s stated proposed orders would remove the claim against the first and third defendants, but leave the claim against the second defendant in place. Final orders, costs and any other matters remained to be addressed after written submissions; the case was listed for mention on 21 March 2023.
Corrigan alleged that repetitive strain injuries to her left arm, shoulder and neck resulted from problems with dishwashers at two premises owned by Dublin City Council, where she worked as a kitchen operative for Aramark-related employers. The defendants denied the allegations. The court did not determine the underlying injury allegations.
The court found that Corrigan signed a settlement agreement on 21 March 2016 accepting €15,000 in full and final settlement of claims arising from an alleged incident in August 2012, and that she received and banked the payment. She said she felt compelled to accept because the defendants had not meaningfully engaged with the Injuries Board process. The judge rejected coercion or undue influence, noting that Corrigan initiated settlement discussions, had time to reconsider, and had been advised to seek legal advice. The judge found the settlement covered the cause of action in her summons and extinguished it against Aramark Ireland and Campbell Catering.
The written agreement did not name Dublin City Council, expressly or by implication. The judge therefore found that the council could not rely on the settlement, regardless of an indemnity arrangement between it and the other defendants.
The council also argued that the Injuries Board authorisation limited the claim to injuries in August 2012. The judge interpreted the authorisation, which referred to injuries on “various dates from in or about the month of August 2012”, as covering injuries or symptoms from that period onward, including those that began or worsened later. It did not cover injuries that became manifest before August 2012.
The judge said any request for discovery against the council should be brought by a separate motion, supported by an affidavit identifying the documents sought and why they were necessary.