PIAB, the Two-Year Period and a Summons Issued Six Days Late
On 10 September 2021, Ms Aoife Byrne suffered a fractured wrist when she slipped on a wet floor at a Dublin retail unit. She instructed solicitors on 20 July 2023. They submitted a PIAB application on 5 August 2023. PIAB issued an authorisation on 20 February 2024. The firm issued a personal injuries summons on 2 April 2024 and served it on 8 April 2024. The defendant's solicitors have pleaded that the claim is statute barred, relying on the two-year period in the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff's solicitor says the PIAB period is excluded under s.50 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 and that the summons was therefore in time. The file shows no evidence of a later date of knowledge, no disability, and no application to renew the summons. The trial date is fixed for 14 October 2025. Counsel asks for a written advice on the limitation position and whether the proceedings should continue.
1. Calculate the limitation expiry date and state whether the summons was issued in time. Show your working.
Read the worked answer
The primary period is two years from the date of injury: 10 September 2021 to 10 September 2023. The PIAB application was made on 5 August 2023, which was inside that period, so s.50 of the 2003 Act can operate. The excluded period runs from 5 August 2023 to 20 February 2024. That is 199 days: 26 days in August, 30 in September, 31 in October, 30 in November, 31 in December, 31 in January and 20 in February. Adding 199 days to 10 September 2023 gives 27 March 2024 (20 days to 30 September, then 31 + 30 + 31 + 31 + 29 + 27). The summons was issued on 2 April 2024, six days after the extended expiry date. It is therefore outside the limitation period. The fact that the PIAB application was timely does not assist once the extended period has itself expired; s.50 suspends time, it does not create a fresh period. Unless a later date of knowledge, a disability or some other statutory exception can be established, the claim is statute barred.
2. What arguments, if any, remain to save the claim? How should counsel advise the client?
Read the worked answer
The available arguments are narrow. First, check whether the date of knowledge is later than 10 September 2021: if Ms Byrne did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the injury was attributable to the defendant's act or omission until a later date, the start date may move. The file presently shows no such evidence, so this is speculative. Second, consider whether any period of disability applies; none is disclosed. Third, consider whether the PIAB application itself was valid and whether the authorisation date is correctly recorded, because a later authorisation would extend time. On the present facts it is not. There is no general judicial discretion to extend the two-year personal injuries period, and an application to renew the summons under Order 8 would not cure a claim that was already barred when the summons issued. Counsel should advise that the proceedings are vulnerable to a successful statute-barred defence and should not be progressed without a proper basis. The client should be told in writing of the limitation failure, the likely costs exposure, and the possibility of a professional negligence claim against the firm, with notification to its insurers. A without prejudice discussion with the defendant may achieve a commercial settlement, but it will not make the claim enforceable.