Fortune v. McLoughlin [2004] IESC 34 (9 June 2004)

Fortune v. McLoughlin [2004] IESC 34 (9 June 2004)

The plaintiff did not have the requisite knowledge that her injury was attributable to the defendant's acts or omissions within the meaning of section 2(1)(c) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991, and her injury prevented her from acquiring such knowledge under section 2(3)(b); therefore, her claim is not statute barred.

Citation
[2004] IESC 34
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Angela Fortune; Defendant/appellant: Cliona McLoughlin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Regarding Statute of Limitations Preliminary Issue and Amendment to Reply
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Date of Knowledge, Disability and Limitation Periods, Medical Negligence, Personal Injuries
Tort Law Medical Negligence Limitation of Actions Statute of Limitations Date of Knowledge Disability and Limitation Periods Personal Injuries

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Fortune

Plaintiff/respondent

Cliona McLoughlin

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Regarding Statute of Limitations Preliminary Issue and Amendment to Reply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is statute barred under the Statute of Limitations 1957 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had the requisite knowledge under section 2(1)(c) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was prevented from acquiring relevant knowledge as a result of her injury under section 2(3)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not have the requisite knowledge that her injury was attributable to the defendant's acts or omissions within the meaning of section 2(1)(c) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991, and her injury prevented her from acquiring such knowledge under section 2(3)(b); therefore, her claim is not statute barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The judgment of the High Court is affirmed.