O'Driscoll v. Dublin Corporation [1998] IEHC 108; [1999] 1 ILRM 106 (3rd July, 1998)

O'Driscoll v. Dublin Corporation [1998] IEHC 108; [1999] 1 ILRM 106 (3rd July, 1998)

The Plaintiff is entitled to an extension of time under the 1991 Act because neither he nor his solicitors could reasonably have been expected to acquire knowledge of the involvement of the last three Defendants within the limitation period, and the critical letter was not proven to have been received.

Citation
[1999] 1 ILRM 106
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Third Defendant: Persian Properties Limited; Fourth Defendant: Bank of Ireland; Defendants/applicants: Fifth, Sixth and Seventh named Defendants
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Motion to Stay Action as Statute Barred
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Personal Injuries, Extension of Time
Tort Law Limitation of Actions Statute of Limitations Personal Injuries Extension of Time

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

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Persian Properties Limited

Third Defendant

Bank of Ireland

Fourth Defendant

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh named Defendants

Defendants/applicants

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Motion to Stay Action as Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action against the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Defendants is statute barred under Section 11(2)(a) of the Statute of Limitations, 1957 as amended by Section 3(1) of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff or his solicitors had knowledge or could reasonably have acquired knowledge of the involvement of the last three Defendants within the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff is entitled to an extension of time under the 1991 Act because neither he nor his solicitors could reasonably have been expected to acquire knowledge of the involvement of the last three Defendants within the limitation period, and the critical letter was not proven to have been received.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Action against the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Defendants is not stayed as statute barred