Dignam -v- The Health Service Executive & anor [2015] IEHC 295 (11 May 2015)

Dignam -v- The Health Service Executive & anor [2015] IEHC 295 (11 May 2015)

The plaintiff's claim did not arise out of the provision of a health service to him and was not exempt from PIAB authorisation under s.3(d). However, the PIAB application was made one day outside the two-year limitation period, so the plaintiff could not benefit from the s.50 extension. The claim is statute barred and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 295
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: Anthony Dignam; Appellant/defendant: The Health Service Executive; Appellant/defendant: Liam Duffy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Circuit Court Appeal / Appeal From Circuit Court Order on Statute of Limitations Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Claim dismissed as statute barred
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act, Personal Injury, Hospital Administration Negligence
Tort Law Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Statute of Limitations Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act Personal Injury Hospital Administration Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Dignam

Respondent/plaintiff

The Health Service Executive

Appellant/defendant

Liam Duffy

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Circuit Court Appeal / Appeal From Circuit Court Order on Statute of Limitations Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is statute barred under the Statute of Limitations
  2. 2 Whether the claim is exempt from PIAB authorisation under s.3(d) of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether the limitation period was interrupted by the PIAB application

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim did not arise out of the provision of a health service to him and was not exempt from PIAB authorisation under s.3(d). However, the PIAB application was made one day outside the two-year limitation period, so the plaintiff could not benefit from the s.50 extension. The claim is statute barred and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as statute barred

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed