The Court of Appeal has allowed Robert Mullins’s appeal in a personal-injury case against the Irish Prison Service, the Minister for Justice and Equality, and Ireland, and sent the question of whether his claim is statute-barred back to the High Court for determination at a full trial.
The appeal concerned an incident on 8 January 2013 and Mullins’s back injury. The defendants argued that the claim was out of time. Mullins maintained that the injury was separate from his earlier back problems and that he did not know it was significant until later. The Court of Appeal did not decide which account was correct or whether the claim is time-barred.
Mullins applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) on 10 September 2015 and issued a plenary summons on 11 March 2016. The judgment said the summons was issued within six months of PIAB authorisation. The limitation dispute turned on when Mullins knew, or should have known, that his injury was significant under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991.
The Court of Appeal found that the High Court motion judge had made an error in concluding that the proceedings were statute-barred if Mullins’s date of knowledge was October 2013. An application to PIAB made on 10 September 2015 was within two years of that date. The appeal court said it was not clear whether the motion judge had ultimately found that Mullins’s knowledge dated from the incident itself or from October 2013.
The judgment also noted uncertainty about when Mullins said he became unable to walk. The appeal court read the evidence as referring to October 2014, while Mullins clarified that he could not walk in August 2014. It said the High Court would need to address the evidence, including whether the injury was an aggravation of an earlier condition or a new injury, and when Mullins knew it was significant.
The court said knowledge of an injury’s full eventual consequences, such as the need for surgery, is not necessarily the relevant test. The question is when the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge that the injury was significant. It directed that the issue be determined under the approach set out by the Supreme Court in O’Sullivan v Ireland, as part of a unitary trial of the matter.
The appeal court made no final finding on liability or limitation. It also agreed with a presumptive order that the defendants pay Mullins’s expenses. The judgment said the case should proceed to trial without further lengthy delay.