The Limitation Date That Moved: Solicitor's Negligence After PIAB
On 12 June 2019, Anne was rear-ended at a roundabout. She attended a solicitor on 3 September 2020. On 20 May 2021 the solicitor applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB). PIAB issued an authorisation on 14 March 2022. The solicitor believed that the authorisation gave a fresh six months and issued proceedings on 10 June 2022. The defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations. Anne's claim was struck out. Her injuries included a whiplash injury and a fractured wrist; special damages were €8,400; counsel had advised general damages of €55,000 to €75,000, with a 25% reduction for contributory negligence because Anne was not wearing a seatbelt. Liability was not seriously in dispute. Anne now wants to sue the solicitor. The solicitor's file shows that he diarised the PIAB application but did not diarise the date of authorisation or the remaining limitation period. He says Anne would probably have settled for €60,000 anyway and that the case was 'always a risk'.
1. Has the solicitor breached his duty of care? Explain the standard and the relevance of the missed limitation date.
Read the worked answer
A solicitor owes a duty to take reasonable care and to have the relevant limitation rules at his fingertips. The personal injuries limitation period is two years from the date of knowledge under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991. The PIAB application on 20 May 2021 stopped time. The period from application to authorisation is disregarded under s. 50 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. The remaining period was 23 days, from 14 March 2022. Proceedings therefore had to issue by about 6 April 2022. The solicitor issued on 10 June 2022. His belief that authorisation gave a fresh six months was wrong. The failure to diarise the authorisation date is a clear breach of the standard of care. The fact that the case was 'always a risk' does not excuse a missed limitation date.
2. How should causation and quantum be approached? Consider the 'lost chance' issue, contributory negligence and settlement risk.
Read the worked answer
Causation asks whether, but for the negligence, Anne would have recovered damages. She must prove that the original claim had a real prospect of success and would not have been defeated by the limitation defence. Liability was not seriously in dispute, but contributory negligence and quantum were. The court will assess the value of the lost claim, not simply accept the €75,000 figure. General damages might be assessed at, say, €60,000, reduced by 25% for contributory negligence to €45,000, plus special damages of €8,400, giving about €53,400 before costs. That figure should be discounted for litigation risk, the chance of an early settlement, and the possibility that a court would have awarded less. Irish courts do not award the full claim as of right; they value the lost chance. The solicitor may argue that Anne would have settled for less, but settlement is not certain.
3. What defences or arguments might the solicitor raise, and how should Anne's claim be framed?
Read the worked answer
The solicitor may argue that Anne's own conduct contributed: she waited 15 months before consulting, and she may have failed to provide documents or attend medical appointments. But her delay did not cause the limitation loss; the solicitor still had time to act. He may also argue that the original claim was weak on causation or that the defendant would have won on contributory negligence. Those arguments go to quantum, not to liability for the negligence. Anne should frame the claim in contract and tort, plead the original claim, the solicitor's breach, the lost opportunity and the resulting loss. She should obtain counsel's opinion on the original claim and an actuarial or forensic account of the lost earnings. A without-prejudice settlement meeting is advisable. The solicitor's professional indemnity insurer will likely be involved.