Murphy -v- Grealish [2009] IESC 9 (10 February 2009)

Murphy -v- Grealish [2009] IESC 9 (10 February 2009)

The Supreme Court held that, on the facts, the defendant's insurers' clear admission of liability and subsequent conduct amounted to an implied representation that led the plaintiff to reasonably believe that proceedings need not be issued within the limitation period. It would be unconscionable to allow the defendant to rely on the Statute of Limitations, and thus an equitable estoppel arose preventing reliance on the statute. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2009] IESC 9
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: David Murphy; Defendant/appellant: Michael Grealish
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Dismiss Proceedings as Statute Barred
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Estoppel, Personal Injury, Equitable Estoppel
Civil Procedure Tort Law Statute of Limitations Estoppel Personal Injury Equitable Estoppel

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Murphy

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Grealish

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Dismiss Proceedings as Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is estopped from relying on the Statute of Limitations due to conduct amounting to an implied representation that liability would not be contested and proceedings need not be issued within the limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, on the facts, the defendant's insurers' clear admission of liability and subsequent conduct amounted to an implied representation that led the plaintiff to reasonably believe that proceedings need not be issued within the limitation period. It would be unconscionable to allow the defendant to rely on the Statute of Limitations, and thus an equitable estoppel arose preventing reliance on the statute. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • Defendant's appeal dismissed.
  • High Court order refusing to dismiss plaintiff's proceedings affirmed.