High Court rules on PIAB claim delay

5 April 2009

The High Court has ruled that a delay by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) in recording receipt of a claim does not prevent the injured person bringing a legal action.

Isis Figueredo sued Eamon McKiernan after a road accident in November 2004.Under the 2004 Civil Liability and Courts Act, the claim had to be brought within two years of the commencement of the legislation, that is by March 30, 2007.

Figueredo’s solicitors sent the claim to PIAB by registered post on March 29, but PIAB date-stamped the claim only on April 2. Counsel for the insurers pleaded that the case was statute-barred because the PIAB rules state that time stops running only when the claimant’s application ‘‘is acknowledged in writing as having been received by the board’’.

Miss Justice Elizabeth Dunne said that, if that was correct, Figueredo would be barred from bringing his action due to circumstances entirely outside his control.

‘‘Clearly, such a consideration could result in significant hardship for a plaintiff,” she said.

Since the application was posted properly on March 29, the judge said she saw no reason why it should not have been received the following day. The judgment has now been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Following the High Court judgment, a Dublin personal injuries solicitor said: ‘‘This case should not be seen as giving carte blanche to send in an application on the last day and take a chance. This was a case which, to some extent, turned on its facts and, of course, if the application had been sent back for correction or amendment, the case would have been statute-barred.

‘‘It is infinitely preferable to have a letter from PIAB before the statute runs out confirming that the case has been properly registered. Ideally, all applications should be made long before this stage.”

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Catriona Crumlish v Health Service Executive – Court of Appeal

On Oct. 15th, The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision against Caitriona Crumlish in her claim against Letterkenny University hospital. The plaintiff alleged that there was a failure to detect and diagnose breast cancer in May 2017 resulting in an alleged...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...