Cunningham v. Neary & Ors [2004] IESC 43 (20 July 2004)

Cunningham v. Neary & Ors [2004] IESC 43 (20 July 2004)

The plaintiff was deemed to have constructive knowledge by December 1998, as she had sufficient information and reason to seek expert advice regarding the necessity of the operation, and thus the limitation period commenced then; her claim, issued in March 2002, was out of time and statute-barred.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] IESC 43
Parties
Plaintiff: Rosemary Cunningham; Defendant: Michael Neary; Defendant: Margaret Quinn; Defendant: Veronica Tarpey; Defendant: Ann Marie O'Gorman; Defendant: Katherine Mary Shea; Defendant: Barney McEneaney
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Preliminary Point of Law (statute of Limitations)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiff's claim dismissed as statute-barred.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Date of Knowledge, Constructive Knowledge, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury
Medical Negligence Limitation of Actions Statute of Limitations Date of Knowledge Constructive Knowledge Medical Malpractice Personal Injury

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosemary Cunningham

Plaintiff

Michael Neary

Defendant

Margaret Quinn

Defendant

Veronica Tarpey

Defendant

Ann Marie O'Gorman

Defendant

Katherine Mary Shea

Defendant

Barney McEneaney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Preliminary Point of Law (statute of Limitations)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages for negligent removal of an ovary was statute-barred under section 3 of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991
  2. 2 When the plaintiff acquired actual or constructive knowledge for the purposes of the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was deemed to have constructive knowledge by December 1998, as she had sufficient information and reason to seek expert advice regarding the necessity of the operation, and thus the limitation period commenced then; her claim, issued in March 2002, was out of time and statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiff's claim dismissed as statute-barred.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed under section 3 of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991