The High Court struck out a former Defence Forces mechanic’s personal injury proceedings against the Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General, finding that the claim was brought outside the limitation period.
Mr Justice Meenan held that the plaintiff had the knowledge required to start the two-year period in January 2009, when he received a report from clinical toxicologist Dr David Wood. The proceedings were issued in July 2013, after the period had expired.
The plaintiff alleged that he had been exposed to dangerous chemicals and solvents while working as an aircraft mechanic at Casement Aerodrome. He claimed that the exposure caused a range of health problems, including skin rashes, memory difficulties and abnormal liver function, and that he was discharged from the Defence Forces and received an invalidity pension. These were allegations; the court was considering the limitation issue, not determining the underlying injury claim.
The defendants argued that reports from 2007 to 2009 showed the plaintiff had enough information to seek legal and expert advice. The plaintiff disputed this, saying he had not been told his symptoms were related to his work and that medical personnel had reassured him there was no such connection.
The judge said that, on a motion to dismiss proceedings as bound to fail, the court had to accept the facts sworn by the plaintiff and could not resolve factual conflicts. Earlier medical records and reports therefore did not, by themselves, establish his date of knowledge at this stage. He noted that a preliminary hearing on the limitation issue could lead to a different conclusion after the plaintiff gave evidence and was cross-examined.
The court focused on Dr Wood’s report, which the plaintiff received in January 2009. It discussed workplace exposure to dichloromethane and said that exposure could possibly explain skin rashes, could be associated with neurocognitive effects, and could be associated with abnormal liver tests. The judge found that this report linked at least some of the injuries claimed to the work environment and gave the plaintiff enough information to reasonably seek further expert advice. The fact that the report did not identify all the chemicals or provide every answer did not stop time from running.
The plaintiff had argued that his date of knowledge was 15 May 2013, when he received a later report from Professor Howard. The judge rejected that position for the limitation question before him. He found the two-year period expired in January 2011 and granted the defendants the relief sought to strike out the proceedings. The court did not determine whether the defendants were negligent or whether the alleged exposure caused the plaintiff’s injuries.