The High Court has struck out Michael Murphy’s proceedings against Allianz plc, finding they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were bound to fail. Mr Justice Gilligan delivered the judgment on 5 December 2014, on Allianz’s application under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The proceedings concerned an injury Mr Murphy said he suffered around 9 January 2004, when blocks fell from a wall onto his foot while he was working as a bricklayer on a site where Bri-Mo Limited was the main contractor. He had earlier obtained judgment in default of defence against Bri-Mo, but the amount of damages remained to be assessed.
Mr Murphy sought relief under section 62 of the Civil Liability Act 1961, arguing that Allianz was obliged under its insurance policy with Bri-Mo to pay damages awarded in the earlier proceedings. He also claimed damages for breach of statutory duty, contract, negligence and misrepresentation. Allianz argued that section 62 required Bri-Mo to be wound up and that the policy claim had been validly repudiated after wage declarations required by the policy were not provided.
The court found that Bri-Mo had been struck off the companies register in 2010 but had never been wound up or placed in liquidation. That meant the facts did not bring Mr Murphy within section 62. The judge also held that, even if Bri-Mo were in liquidation, Mr Murphy would have to establish that money was payable to Bri-Mo under the policy. He accepted that Allianz had validly repudiated the claim more than seven years earlier and noted that Bri-Mo had never challenged the repudiation. The amount of the insured liability had also not been assessed.
The judge rejected the plaintiff’s objections to the insurer’s solicitor relying on documents in an affidavit, finding that hearsay material may be included in affidavits on interlocutory applications under the court rules and that the exhibited documents could be considered in this application. He also refused the plaintiff’s request to stay the proceedings.
The court held there was no contractual relationship between Mr Murphy and Allianz and no duty in contract, statute or tort that could support a damages claim. It struck out the proceedings under Order 19, Rule 28 and under its inherent jurisdiction. The ruling resolved the claim against Allianz; it did not assess damages in the earlier case against Bri-Mo.