Limitation Periods Flashcards
Hegarty v O’Loughran
woman was statute-barred from bringing a claim for injuries caused by an operation negligently performed even though she had not been aware of her injuries until sometime after the operation
Halford v Brooks
test is to know with sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to the issue of a writ
Gough v Neary
SC refused claim of statute bar where woman only found out her hysterectomy was unnecessary years after it was done, held that the media reports of the scandal is what affixed P with knowledge
McCoy v Keating
P suffered PTSD after road traffic collision where children were stuck in a car, action brought 2 years after incident, P claimed the clock should only begin when they were diagnosed, court held otherwise and that they were aware of their symptoms immediately
Pirelli General Cable World
Ps cause of action will not accrue until damage occurs, which will commonly consist of cracks coming into existence as a result of the defect. There may be cases where the defect is so gross that the building is doomed form the start but such cases are exceptional
O’Donnell v Kilsaran
HC approved Eng approach towards latent defects in property in Pirelli
Brandley v Deane
P argued large irreparable cracks were a result of defective foundations and negligence of D supervising consulting engineer, D claimed statute-barred as it was after 6 year period, 2004 foundation completed/actions occurred, 2005 first cracks observed, held P only suffered damage at the date the cracks first appeared
Brennan v Mullan
P abused by Christian brother at monastery as a young boy, abuse severely affected personal & professional life, was told he couldn’t bring a claim but realised years later he could, claim was not statute-barred as it was clear, as required under S48 that abuse had substantially impaired his reasoning
Toal v Duignan
D failed to identify abnormality in P which was left undiagnosed for over 20 years, in disallowing the claim the court held “where there is a clear and patent unfairness in asking D to defend a case after a very long lapse of time between the acts complained of and the trial, the court may as a matter of justice dismiss the action”
Primor v Stokes Kennedy
Hamilton CJ held the court has an inherent jurisdiction to control their own procedure and dismiss a claim in the interests of justice, in doing so it should have regard to constitutional principles of fairness, the balance of justice and if delay was inordinate and inexcusable
Byrne v Minister for Defence
Peart J held “there is a public interest in not permitting claims which not been brought in a timely fashion, to take up the valuable and important time of the courts and thereby reduce the availability of that much used and needed resource to those who have acted promptly”
McDonald v McBain
P purchased house from D, relations broke down, house burnt down, 2 witnesses confirmed they saw D do it but later retracted statements, 9 years later D admitted the offence, P sued but court upheld D’s claim that case was statute-barred as P had enough info to bring claim against D at time house was burned down so delay was considered to bar the claim
