With regard to the tort of negligence, road traffic accidents are exceptional. They are exceptional because they conceal the fact that, often, the factual cause of an event is not discovered.
The MIBI was not mentioned specifically in the 2003 Act, hence the doubt. The judgment makes sense; anything else would have been an anomaly. Indeed, in a very real sense the 2003 Act was intended to apply to the MIBI more than anyone or anything else; they are the insurance industry.
What springs to mind is the challenge in trying explain the issue to the Irish Supreme Court (or any court) if the need arose.
Ireland has previously cast a veto (in the EU Council of Ministers) and it was denied that it had that effect.
It’s easier to forget than to remember. If a witness has forgotten things it is permissible, sometimes, for the witness to check a written record of what has been forgotten.
In Wicklow County Council v. Fenton & Ors  IEHC 102 (31 July 2002) the High Court likened the owner of an illegal dump to a receiver of stolen property. Without a receiver there can be no profit in theft; without an illegal dump there can be no illegal dumping. The court accepted the principle advanced by the applicant Council that it did not have to prove negligence; that the state of mind of the Respondents was not required to […]
What is staggering is that the reason the public needs to know such things is to ensure that the HSE management effectively deals with the problems that would be revealed generally.
In OâConnor v OâDriscoll  IEHC the Plaintiff was a bank executive who was injured in a road traffic accident (âRTAâ?). The court made the following finding; The case is highly unusual. The physical injuries sustained by the plaintiff were soft tissue damage to his neck and low back as well as some relatively minor damage to three upper teeth on the left side. The plaintiff in addition to these physical injuries also underwent a severe psychological reaction to the […]