The High Court has refused an application by Otis Limited to set aside a third-party notice in a personal-injury action arising from an alleged lift-door incident at Bank of Ireland’s Grand Canal Place offices in Dublin.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 17 May 2018, Ms Justice Baker found that the second defendant, Denis O’Brien, had not delayed unreasonably in seeking to join Otis, which had installed and maintained the lift. She said the application could have moved with more expedition. The court refused the relief sought and said it would make directions for the further prosecution of the claim as the parties might propose.
Catherine Caffrey’s proceedings arise from an incident said to have occurred on 18 June 2013, when she was entering a lift and its doors allegedly struck her. The judgment concerns only Otis’s application to set aside the third-party notice; it does not determine the underlying injury claim or liability for the incident.
Otis argued that O’Brien knew from 2013 that it was responsible for lift maintenance and had enough information to seek to join it much earlier. It relied on the time between O’Brien’s defence in August 2016 and the motion for leave in April 2017, as well as earlier correspondence about the incident and the allegations in the personal-injury summons.
O’Brien’s solicitor said the circumstances of the incident were clarified at a multi-party inspection on 1 November 2016. An engineer’s report followed on 29 November. O’Brien argued that it was appropriate to obtain expert and legal advice before applying to join Otis, and that the motion followed those steps with reasonable expedition.
Justice Baker said the court had to assess the whole circumstances and progress of the case, not just whether each period of delay had been fully explained or whether new information had emerged. She accepted that the claim raised issues about the lift’s repair or suitability and that Otis’s identity was known earlier. But she also found the engineering evidence relevant and accepted that O’Brien had considered the expert report, obtained counsel’s advice and consulted its principals before applying.
The judge concluded that the delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances. Otis did not argue that it had suffered prejudice from the delay. The court made no finding on the merits of Caffrey’s claim or any liability by Otis or the defendants.