Bolger v. O'Brien [1999] IESC 37; [1999] 2 IR 431; [1999] 2 ILRM 372 (16th March, 1999)

Bolger v. O'Brien [1999] IESC 37; [1999] 2 IR 431; [1999] 2 ILRM 372 (16th March, 1999)

The plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known that he suffered a significant injury from the time of his return to work and realisation of incapacity for manual work. The subjective lack of appreciation of the full significance of the injury is irrelevant once significance is established. The claim is statute-barred under Section 3(1) of the 1991 Act.

Citation
[1999] IESC 37
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: James Bolger; Defendants/appellants: Defendants/Appellants (not named in judgment)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Plaintiff's claim held statute-barred.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Personal Injuries, Date of Knowledge, Subjective and Objective Test for Knowledge
Tort Law Limitation of Actions Statute of Limitations Personal Injuries Date of Knowledge Subjective and Objective Test for Knowledge

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Bolger

Plaintiff/respondent

Defendants/Appellants (not named in judgment)

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for personal injuries is statute-barred under the Statute of Limitations 1957 and the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991
  2. 2 What is the correct test for determining the 'date of knowledge' under the 1991 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known that he suffered a significant injury from the time of his return to work and realisation of incapacity for manual work. The subjective lack of appreciation of the full significance of the injury is irrelevant once significance is established. The claim is statute-barred under Section 3(1) of the 1991 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Plaintiff's claim held statute-barred.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed as statute-barred under Section 3(1) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991.