In Byrne v Hudson [2007] IESC the Plaintiff lost his eye when an adult son of the owners of 84 Windmill Rd. Crumlin in Dublin shot him with a paint ball gun from the upstairs window of that house.
The Plaintiff instructed his solicitor. However, the Plaintiff failed to tell the solicitor of certain circumstances actually known to him. Those circumstances were that the father of the adult son no longer lived at 84 Windmill Rd. and that the occupier was the mother. (The adult son also did not live at the address.)
Consequently, when the solicitor issued proceedings, the adult son and the father were named as the defendants, the latter as the occupier of the premises. As he was not the occupier, the action was bound to fail against him. Much later the Plaintiff joined the mother. She pleaded the Statute of Limitations 1957, as amended. The Plaintiff pleaded the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 in reply. Under this amending act time does not begin to run until a victim knows or with reasonable inquiry can know the identity of the person who has wronged him or her.
The mother claimed that the time within which the Plaintiff could effectively and successfully issue proceedings against her had long since expired. The Supreme Court agreed with her. It found that the Plaintiff could not avail of the provisions of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 in circumstances where not only could he easily find out the relevant facts (that the mother was the only occupier) but that he actually knew this when he instructed his solicitor (and failed to tell him).
(What was at issue, [it is surmised], was the probable availability of insurance cover for the Plaintiff’s claim. That cover was to benefit the occupier and not anyone else. The adult son was not welcome in the house; he would not have been an insured person. The father was not an occupier; he would not have had cover. Only the mother as occupier would have been covered. She was the proper and preferred defendant.)
(Currently, an injured person has two years to issue proceedings and to stop time running against him or her. Only if the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 applies, will that time not start running at the accrual of the cause of action (the date of the injury)).
It is unwise to make a quick judgment on whether time has run against a claim or not. This post should not be relied upon to determine that question in any case. See the post “Disclaimer!” in this blog.

In legal circles the significance of making a wrong statement looms large. We saw this in the case of Willie O’Dea. Willie’s case is a double example; he straddled the legal world and the political world with his error. In the legal world the political world is often looked on with a cold eye, for good reason. In politics “denial” is not, it seems, evidence of a character flaw; it can be a skill, measured by the duration of the deferral of the time one is called to account.

Denial is only incidentally the subject of this post; conveying wrong information is its subject.

We are all of us guilty, at some time or other, of doing this. We have firm clear recollections of where we left the keys, the hand blender, the tea-bags, the car insurance etc. We were wrong. Nevertheless, we conveyed (even propagated) the wrong information to someone else. Errors of this kind are common. Significantly, being wrong is not evidence of wrongdoing.

There are occasions when being wrong is evidence of wrongdoing, but these occasions are not common. Even sworn evidence in court, if not accepted by the court, does not lead to a charge of perjury. Generally, we do not infer dishonesty from the error in the statement. It is tempting to say that the more elaborate the statement, the more it is evidence of a malign intent if it is wrong, but this is not true, as we saw in the case of Hilary Clinton.

Perjury aside, the law has been anxious to distinguish between wrong statements that cause personal injury and wrong statements that cause economic loss. (Most wrong statements cause neither).

We see in the case of Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle [2007] IEHC 28 an instance of what statements and what circumstances will trigger liability for economic loss in Irish law.

In 2000 the plaintiff purchased 77 Upper Gardiner Street in Dublin for the sum of IR £2,342,000.00 for investment purposes. He dealt with the defendant firm, acting for the vendor and the defendant told him (in its sales brochure) that the property comprised a floor area of 23,057 square feet. In fact the floor area of the property was 21,248 square feet, (1,817 square feet less than what was represented to the plaintiff by the defendant).

The defendant’s brochure contained a disclaimer of liability for wrong statements in the brochure in the following terms;

“Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of these particulars, and they are believed to be correct, they are not warranted and intending purchasers/lessees should satisfy themselves as to the correctness of the information given.”

The High Court found for the plaintiff as follows; (a) the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was sufficiently proximate to give rise to a “special relationship” of the kind identified in Wildgust and, (b) that the loss allegedly sustained by the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances and, (c) that the imposition upon the defendant of such a duty was, in the circumstances not unfair, unjust or unreasonable. The court was satisfied on the facts of the case that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure that the calculation of the floor area of the property that the defendant published in its sales brochure was accurate.

In the absence of evidence of purchasers commissioning surveys to check the accuracy of precise measurements contained in the brochures of reputable auctioneers, the court refused to find the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence in failing to check the defendant’s measurements.

It isn’t easy to generate readable prose on any subject, even one’s “own” subject. The principal difficulty is the depreciation of intellectual capital. We tend to learn what we know early in life and by the time we look authoritative we know less than we ever knew.

Maurice Neligan is a case in point. In the Irish Times he has opined about the trauma of medical negligence claims on doctors.

He shouldn’t bother, unless he has monitored the latest available information (in the self-same Irish Times!)

That shows there are more than 4,000 adverse incidents in Irish Hospitals each month. That’s more than 48,000 per year.

The trauma to concern us should be the trauma of the victim patients, not the trauma of the doctors.

Insurance has a strange aspect which we often overlook; we are happy that we did not need it.

We do not think that the premia paid year after year to insure our house is wasted money. After all, we do not want our house to burn down; we just want to rebuild and restore it if it does. So, we pay a small sum of money to meet the possibility of having to pay the much larger sum if the house does burn down (or suffer some other form of damage).

Sometimes the question of what is a proportionate sum to pay as a premium to cover the perceived risk has to be publicly determined.

In the UK, unlike Ireland, there is anxiety that justice should be facilitated. By “justice” is meant the ready and easy opportunity to go to court seeking a remedy without being prevented by extraneous causes, like poverty. Poverty is relative; most people in Ireland would consider the costs of a High Court action (or even a Circuit court action) beyond them.

Consequently, the UK authorities have facilitated schemes intended to achieve this end.

One such scheme is to allow lawyers who work on a “no win, no fee” basis to charge a significantly higher fee when they are successful, and provide that the losing party has to pay that higher fee as a matter of course.

Another is to recompense a plaintiff his or her insurance premium for “After The Event” (ATE) insurance. This is insurance taken out to, effectively, help pay for some of the litigation costs of the plaintiff/insured.

Section 29 of the UK Access to Justice Act 1999 provides:

“Where in any proceedings a costs order is made in favour of any party who has taken out an insurance policy against the risk of incurring a liability in those proceedings, the costs payable to him may, subject in the case of court proceedings to rules of court, include costs in respect of the premium of the policy.”

Inevitably, the losing defendants (other insurance companies) took issue with the premia being charged for the ATE.

HERE ‘s the outcome of that dispute.

The power of mythical thinking has to be experienced to be believed. Currently, in Ireland, nobody is more subject to its power than the judges of the Superior courts. (With the possible exception of the Irish catholic bishops).

Of course the legal profession is subject to the same myths as the judiciary, but that would not long outlast (I hope) the escape of the judiciary from their myths.

The myth of immediate interest is the fairytale that the Dail (Ireland’s lower parliamentary chamber) has any influence in the making or passing of legislation. It does not; legislation is originated by the Cabinet and driven through onto the statute books.

We know who is responsible, therefore, for the requirement that personal injury litigants must swear an Affidavit of Verification asserting the truth of the factual assertions set out in pleadings commenced on their behalf.

Willie O’Dea is in the Cabinet. He says, of his factually incorrect Affidavit, that when he realized his error in his Affidavit, he “put his hands up” and admitted the error. The Cabinet has endorsed this as the correct response. Consequently, no judge can, or should, ask for more of personal injury litigants.

Willie O’Dea’s understanding is not new or peculiar. His Affidavit will have contained the averment:

“I make this affidavit from facts within my own knowledge save where otherwise appears, and where so otherwise appearing I believe the same to be true.”

This statement is about appearances and beliefs. Willie was right to emphasise that his beliefs are the important thing and, of course, we know that appearances can be deceptive, especially to deponents in Affidavits.

That, clearly is what the Cabinet meant and means by the legislation imposing the obligation on personal injury litigants.

Judges take note.

Oddly, nobody has adverted to the role of the Attorney General in the Willie O’Dea kerfuffle. The Attorney General is the lawyer to the Cabinet. He clearly endorsed the view of the Cabinet, did he not? Maybe not. Whether he did or did not is not important. We are not entitled to know and nobody is asking.

But we should see him as he is, warts and all. We should not have to endure the consequence of more mythical thinking by the judiciary (and the Law Library). The Attorney General is down in the arena with everybody else. He fights for his clients. He represents their interests. He should not be accorded the deference he gets from the judiciary and the Law Library. (According to the Bar of Ireland, the Attorney General is the Leader of the Bar).

I have referred previously to the difficulties sometimes encountered with insurance companies.

However, an insurer does not always have the advantage.

If an insurer, meeting a claim of wrongful refusal of indemnity (meaning, the insured person sues for breach of contract following the making of a rejected claim), pleads a simple denial, the court will invariably restrain the defendant insurer from making an affirmative case and the insurer will be confined to undermining the plaintiff’s case (if it is possible).

This means that the plaintiff cannot and should not be surprised, in the litigation, by the advancement of some theory explaining the mechanism of loss (justifying the refusal of indemnity cover). In other words, the defendant insurer is obliged to plead its specific case and reason for refusing cover and cannot take the plaintiff by surprise in the running of the case.

Furthermore, if the defendant insurer is claiming that the claim falls into an exception specified in the contract of insurance, it is for the insurer defendant to prove that fact and not for the plaintiff insured to disprove it.

The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (“PIAB”) has published a book showing the level of damages the Board will recommend for various injuries.

The book is incomplete. We see this from the case of Kenny v Cowley [2006] IESC 37.

In this case the Plaintiff had a defective left eye before the accident (for which accident the defendant was liable). His right eye was injured in the accident and his vision in it was much reduced. The Supreme court judge writing the consensus judgment noted that the PIAB book did not deal with the loss of an eye. (In fact, the plaintiff’s claim was not simply for the loss of an eye; it was for the loss of his only useful eye).

The Supreme Court decided the award of €90,000 by the High Court for the injury was too low. It increased the award to €120,000.

Many claims against employers can and will fail when the claim is made as one of negligence by the employer. However, because of the multitude of duties imposed on employers by statute, it is common for the employer to be found liable to the employee for an injury even where the employer has not been “at fault” (meaning, here, “negligent”).

The duty imposed by Regulation 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 is a case in point. Its predecessor, Regulation 19 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 1993 was described in Doyle v Electricity Supply Board [2008] IEHC 88 as

“In the instant case, I have found that the plaintiff has not established a breach by the defendant of any duty at Common Law owed by the defendant to the plaintiff as his employer.
However, with effect from 22nd February, 1993, (when the Regulations of 1993 came into force), a statutory duty was imposed upon the defendant which has been described (by Kearns J.at p. 263 in Everitt) “as virtually an absolute duty” which requires the defendant “ . . . to ensure that . . . the necessary measures are taken so that the work equipment is suitable for the work to be carried out or is properly adapted for that purpose and may be used by employees without risk to their safety and health”.”

Regulation 28 (and Regulation 19 before it) imposes duties on employers relating to work equipment. The equipment must be suitable and free of risk to the employee. It is not necessary to prove that the risk was known to the employer; all that is required is to prove the injury and relationship of the injury to the equipment.

Solicitors acting for land/building purchasers deliver “Requisitions on Title” to the vendors. The requisitions are direct questions addressing a range of issues of possible concern. Now that there is little or no conveyancing to be done it would be best to look at the process now and again to keep it fresh in the mind of the profession.

So, what to answer if asked,

Given its position, please confirm that the property has never suffered from flooding.”

Well, in this case HERE the reply was:-

Our clients confirm that the property has never suffered from flooding during their 14-year occupation.”

The sale closed and the purchasers found that the Thames river (at the bottom of the garden) flooded the property.

The purchasers have sued the vendors; the case is ongoing.

In cross-examination the vendor emphatically denies misleading the purchasers; he meant “the building” when he referred to “the property”. The building had never been flooded; just the garden, and that less than claimed by the purchasers.

So, Irish conveyancers, my reply to that purchaser’s requisition would have been:-

this is not a requisition on title”

On receipt of rejoinders my reply would have been:-

purchasers should make their own enquiries”.

We in Ireland have a precedent for this case and consequently practitioners should wake up when they see the reference to “the Vendors…say…..” in replies to requisitions.

Vendors often say more than their prayers.

As this is written, the public perception of AIB and Bank of Ireland is that they are solvent. They may not be. If they are not, the Government, or part of it, knows it. The Government, although it is silent on the point, is in that case, in effect. perpetuating the illusion of the banks’ solvency. This split between what is officially the case and what is really the case is common. We have seen recently that, although they were not directly protected by the State, we slowly, and by chance, learned that Liam Carroll’s property interests were financially unsustainable with Paddy Kelly’s likewise, followed by Bernard McNamara’s. These truths, easily comprehended when brought to view, are part of the more obscure greater truth, that the crash of these property interests was facilitated by massive Government failures and that the possible insolvency of the banks was caused by the Government.

The recent apology from the British Government to the victims of the Thalidomide scandal reminds us of what is required when important issues are denied or ignored; quality journalists.

In the UK they had the Sunday Times “Insight” team under Harold Evans. As editor of the Sunday Times, Evans refused to knuckle under in the face of Distillers’ court injunction preventing the newspaper from publishing the truth (to the extent then known) about the cause and history of the dreadful birth defects that had appeared as a result of the use of the Thalidomide drug by women. (Distillers was the distributor of Thalidomide).

(Ironically, given the title to this post, a newspaper of the name “Sunday Times” continued to exist after Harold Evans left it, but it was not what it had been; Rupert Murdoch owned it then).

At the crucial time and on the central issue, openness, the UK courts came down emphatically on the side of Distillers and attempted to impose secrecy.

Here in Ireland, if there were to be a reprise of that struggle we can not be sure that the courts’ response might not be equally inadequate.

The reasons for this are twofold; access to public records is still regularly denied as a consistent Government policy, and, within the court system, access to paper and electronic records is a matter of chance and whim. The Government has not only set the policy of “closed” administration, it has written the legislation to make it legal to refuse access to public records.