Plaintiff vs Defendant

This case concerned an application by the defendant to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

TLDR:

• The plaintiff filed a personal injury claim nearly five years after the alleged incident.
• The defendant sought to dismiss the claim as being outside the three-year limitation period.
• The court considered whether it was equitable to allow the claim to proceed despite the delay.
• The court directed that the limitation issue be heard as a preliminary issue at trial.

The plaintiff was employed as a kitchen assistant by the defendant at Omagh High School. She alleged that on 12 December 2017, she slipped on icy ground due to the defendant's failure to treat the area with salt and a broken spouting that caused water to freeze.

The plaintiff issued a writ of summons on 18 August 2022, nearly five years after the incident. She attributed the delay to serious health issues suffered by herself and her solicitor, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant argued that it had taken reasonable precautions for the plaintiff's safety and denied liability. The defendant also contended that the delay would adversely affect the recollection of witnesses, with one key witness having died and others retired.

The court noted that in personal injury cases arising from negligence or breach of duty, the limitation period is three years. Under Article 50 of the 1989 Order, the court has discretion to allow a claim to proceed if it is equitable, considering factors such as the length of delay and the impact on evidence.

The court referred to previous cases, including Gordon and Carberry, which provided guidance on handling limitation issues. The court emphasized the need to balance the prejudice to the plaintiff if the time limit is not extended against the prejudice to the defendant if it is.

The court assessed the factors set out in Article 50(4) and considered the affidavits from both parties. The defendant's main argument was the impact of the delay on the cogency of its evidence, but the court found no precise evidence of this impact.

The court concluded that the limitation issue should be heard as a preliminary issue at trial, where oral evidence and cross-examination could provide a clearer understanding. The plaintiff was directed to serve a statement of claim within seven days.

Legal representatives: Mr. Boyle for the defendant, Mr. McNamee for the plaintiff.

Judicial Panel: Master Harvey

Case Citation Reference: [2023] NIQB 54