Mark Smith v Mark Cunningham & Ors (Approved) [2023] IESC 13 (25 May 2023)

Mark Smith v Mark Cunningham & Ors (Approved) [2023] IESC 13 (25 May 2023)

The cause of action accrued in May 2006 when the plaintiff acquired the property with defective planning permission, as actual damage occurred at that point, even though the plaintiff could not have discovered it until later. The claim is therefore statute-barred under s. 11(2)(a) of the Statute of Limitations 1957.

Citation
[2023] IESC 13
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Mark Smith; Defendant/respondent: Mark Cunningham; Defendant/respondent: Kevin Sorohan; Defendant/respondent: Anne Marie Sorohan; Defendant/respondent: Paul Kelly practising under the style and title of Paul Kelly and Company Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Accrual of Cause of Action, Statute of Limitations, Professional Negligence, Latent Damage, Defective Title, Planning Permission Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Smith

Plaintiff/appellant

Mark Cunningham

Defendant/respondent

Kevin Sorohan

Defendant/respondent

Anne Marie Sorohan

Defendant/respondent

Paul Kelly practising under the style and title of Paul Kelly and Company Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

  1. 1 When does a cause of action in tort accrue for the purposes of s. 11(2)(a) of the Statute of Limitations 1957 in cases of professional negligence involving latent defects?
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff's claim statute-barred due to the timing of the accrual of damage?

Ratio Decidendi

The cause of action accrued in May 2006 when the plaintiff acquired the property with defective planning permission, as actual damage occurred at that point, even though the plaintiff could not have discovered it until later. The claim is therefore statute-barred under s. 11(2)(a) of the Statute of Limitations 1957.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed as statute-barred