Monaghan v Molony (Approved) [2024] IEHC 287 (13 May 2024)

Monaghan v Molony (Approved) [2024] IEHC 287 (13 May 2024)

The plaintiff had actual knowledge of the injury, its significance, and its causal link to the defendant's alleged negligence within two years of the relevant medical attendances in 2015, as evidenced by his own correspondence and medical consultations; later expert reports did not alter the date of knowledge. The claim is statute barred.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 287
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Monaghan; Defendant: Pierce Molony
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issue (statute of Limitations)
Outcome
claim dismissed as statute barred
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Date of Knowledge, Personal Injury, Medical Negligence, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs
Tort Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Statute of Limitations Date of Knowledge Personal Injury Amendment of Pleadings Costs

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Monaghan

Plaintiff

Pierce Molony

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issue (statute of Limitations)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is statute barred under s. 11 of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957 as amended
  2. 2 Determination of plaintiff's 'date of knowledge' under s. 2 of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had actual knowledge of the injury, its significance, and its causal link to the defendant's alleged negligence within two years of the relevant medical attendances in 2015, as evidenced by his own correspondence and medical consultations; later expert reports did not alter the date of knowledge. The claim is statute barred.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed as statute barred

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed as statute barred.
  • Indicative view: defendant entitled to costs under s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.