Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court strikes out alleged bullying and harassment in the workplace proceedings as statue barred, on the grounds that: the plaintiff suffered from psychosis during the limitation period, but at the time of the accrual of the action, she had executive functioning such that she could get legal advice and was not of unsound mind.
High Court – application to strike out proceedings as statute barred – trial of a preliminary issue – bullying and harassment claim during course of employment – first attended GP on 21 May 2014 for sleep disturbance and stress – agreed date of accrual of the action – PIAB lodged on 21 March 2017 – ten months outside the two-year limit – plaintiff pleads that the proceedings were lodged within two years of her date of knowledge – pleads that she was under a disability throughout that time – entitled to an extension of time as provided for by the Statue of limitations – medical evidence of the plaintiff’s GP – plaintiff admitted involuntarily to hospital under psychiatric care in May 2016 – diagnosed with a delusional disorder – sent a signed letter of complaint in November 2014 – evidence of lack of executive function – lack of evidence from defendant to contradict this view – matter of evidence – detailed account given to her GP on accrual of action date – must have been under a disability at the time the cause of action accrued – plaintiff under a disability arising from psychotic illness from October 2014 – was not diagnosed formally until May 2016 – medical evidence that executive functioning such that she could not instruct a solicitor – inconsistent with evidence of things that she did do at the time – attended meetings with citizen advice and FLAC – husband brought her to the meetings – no evidence of lack of understanding re medical decisions – able to recount a narrative to her husband so that he could complete an LRC complaint form – not of unsound mind at time of accrual of action – statue barred – proceedings struck out – costs follow the event.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.