BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Farrell -v- Board of Management of St. Kevin's CBS Arklow [2014] IEHC 100 (28 February 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2014/H100.html Cite as: [2014] IEHC 100 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Judgment Title: Farrell -v- Board of Management of St. Kevin's CBS Arklow Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 100 High Court Record Number: 2012 13033P Date of Delivery: 28/02/2014 Court: High Court Composition of Court: Judgment by: Barrett J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 100 THE HIGH COURT [2012 No. 13033 P] BETWEEN CIERAN FARRELL PLAINTIFF AND
THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF ST. KEVIN’S CBS ARKLOW DEFENDANT JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Barrett delivered on the 28th day of February, 2014 1. The issue in this case is whether a personal injuries action commenced by Mr. Farrell, the plaintiff in this action, is statute-barred. 2. On 5th December, 2007, while he was leaving an examination hall in St Kevin’s CBS, Mr. Farrell suffered injury when a pen was thrown at him by a fellow student. Mr Farrell has since commenced a personal injuries action in relation to the injury that he suffered. He maintains that the action was commenced within the applicable limitation period. The Board of Management of St Kevin’s, the defendant in this action, contends that the limitation period has expired and that the action is barred from proceeding. 3. The dispute between the parties as to whether or not the proceedings are statute-barred centres on the issuance by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, pursuant to section 14(4) of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, of an authorisation empowering the Plaintiff to bring proceedings in respect of his injury. The form of authorisation that issues from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board identifies, amongst other matters, the name of the ‘claimant’, here Mr. Farrell, and the name(s) of the applicable respondent(s). It also bears the date on which the authorisation purports to issue. This last date has a special significance. Under Section 50 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 the period commencing upon a claimant’s formal engagement with the Board under Section 11 of the Act and ending six months from the date of issue of an authorisation under the Act does not count for the purposes of calculating the applicable limitation period. Per Section 50:
4. In the Plaintiff’s case his alleged injury was suffered on 5th December, 2007. At the time he was a minor, so the two-year limitation period now applicable to personal injuries proceedings did not begin to run until he reached the age of majority on 6th February, 2010. Time ceased to run on 19th December, 2011, when the Plaintiff made application under Section 11 to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. It started running again six months from the date when the Board issued its Section 14 authorisation to Mr. Farrell. At that time Mr. Farrell had one month and 19 days remaining to him to commence proceedings. 5. The parties dispute what date the Section 14 authorisation issued from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board to Mr. Farrell. The Board issued an authorisation dated 11th January, 2012. This named the respondent as “St. Kevin’s CBS”. On 22nd August, 2012, Mr. Farrell’s solicitors wrote to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and asked if the Board “would please issue a further Authorisation in favour of The Board of Management St. Kevin’s CBS Arklow.” With a letter of 14th November, 2012, the Board issued, per the letter, an “amended authorisation, reflecting the correct respondent title”. Notably, this “amended authorisation” continued to bear the same issue date as its predecessor, viz. 11th January, 2012. 6. The Board of Management looks to the face of the authorisation and contends that the date of issue remains 11th January, 2012 and thus that the period for initiation of Mr. Farrell’s action expired on 30th August, 2012. Mr. Farrell contends that the practical reality of matters is that the date on which the authorisation finally issued was 14th November, 2012. This would have the result that the limitation period expired sometime in 2013. As Mr. Farrell issued his personal injuries summons on 20th December, 2012, the Board of Management contends that it was issued out of time; Mr. Farrell contends that it was issued within time. 7. There is case-law that supports the contention made by Mr. Farrell that the date of issue of the section Section14 authorisation is 14th November, 2012. In Figueredo v. McKiernan [2008] IEHC 368 an issue arose as to when an application had been made to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The plaintiff contended that application had been made on one date. The defendant contended that under the applicable rules the document fell to be deemed as received on a later date. Dunne J. considered that the correct date was the date on which the document actually issued, stating, at 5:
8. In Fogarty v. McKeogh Brothers (Ballina) Limited [2010] 4 I.R. 374, again in the context of a personal injuries action, the court had to decide on what date an authorisation should be treated as having issued when it was dated one date but received by the solicitor for the plaintiff on a later date. Clarke J. states, at 378, that:
9. For the reasons stated above the court considers that the plaintiff’s personal injuries proceedings, as commenced on 20th December, 2012, do not stand barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations 1957 (as amended).
|
