Murphy v Foley (Approved) [2023] IEHC 645 (16 November 2023)

Murphy v Foley (Approved) [2023] IEHC 645 (16 November 2023)

The plaintiff's claim is statute barred because the application to PIAB was not made within the statutory two-year period. The reason for the delay was an oversight by the plaintiff's former solicitors, not any representation or conduct by the defendant or his insurer. There was no evidence of any representation, reliance, or unconscionable conduct by the defendant that could give rise to estoppel or justify disapplying the statute. The court has no jurisdiction to extend the limitation period in these circumstances.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 645
Parties
Plaintiff: David Murphy; Defendant: Denis Foley
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Claim / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Statute of Limitations
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed as statute barred; defendant entitled to relief sought.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Personal Injuries, Estoppel, Unconscionability, Preliminary Issues
Tort Law Civil Procedure Statute of Limitations Personal Injuries Estoppel Unconscionability Preliminary Issues

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Murphy

Plaintiff

Denis Foley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Claim / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Statute of Limitations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is statute barred under the Statute of Limitations for failure to submit to PIAB within the statutory period
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is estopped from relying on the statute of limitations due to alleged unconscionable conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim is statute barred because the application to PIAB was not made within the statutory two-year period. The reason for the delay was an oversight by the plaintiff's former solicitors, not any representation or conduct by the defendant or his insurer. There was no evidence of any representation, reliance, or unconscionable conduct by the defendant that could give rise to estoppel or justify disapplying the statute. The court has no jurisdiction to extend the limitation period in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed as statute barred; defendant entitled to relief sought.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim is statute barred and dismissed.
  • Defendant entitled to costs; parties to agree draft order within 14 days or file short written submissions in case of dispute.