Locations
The High Court recently adjudicated on an interesting personal injuries action, whereby the insurer (RSA) declined to indemnify the Defendant, but sought to be joined to the proceedings as a Co-Defendant.
The Plaintiff alleged personal injuries arising from an accident whereby she was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the Defendant (her brother) that rear ended another vehicle (driven by Mr Hugh Geoghegan). The Defendant had stated that he did not know the driver of the vehicle which he rear-ended.
Investigations were undertaken by RSA which discovered that the Plaintiff had been in a relationship with Mr Geoghegan for 12 years and had a child with him. The investigations further witnessed Mr Geoghegan delivering a person to the Defendant’s property. It was clear to RSA that the parties knew each other.
RSA sought to be joined to the proceedings so that the insurer could protect its interest in the most cost effective and time efficient manner. RSA put on Affidavit that they believed a fraud had been perpetrated in relation to the claim and that the Defendant would more than likely not file a full defence to the proceedings given the relationship between the parties. RSA further stated that should an award be obtained against the Defendant, the Plaintiff could then pursue RSA for that amount pursuant to Section 76 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (the “1961 Act).
RSA made the application to the High Court following refusals by the County Registrar and Circuit Court to join them to the proceedings. Order 15, rule 13 of the Rules of Superior Courts allows RSA to make an application to be joined to the proceedings where exceptional circumstances exist.
Counsel for RSA maintained that by joining RSA to the proceedings to allow them to plead fraud, it was the most efficient use of court time and avoided unnecessary additional costs being incurred by the parties.
Counsel for the Plaintiff argued, in accordance with established case law, that the Plaintiff cannot be forced to sue someone that they do not wish to sue. It was also argued that the insurer would have an opportunity to plead fraud once the Plaintiff had issued proceedings under Section 76 of the 1961 Act.
President Kearns was satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed to join RSA to the proceedings as a notice party having regard to the Court’s interest in ensuring that litigation is effectively conducted and that valuable court time is used efficiently, the facts of this particular case justify the joining of RSA as a notice party. President Kearns also stated that it was obvious that there was a real risk that no defence of the kind sought by RSA would be advanced by the existing Defendant.
A full copy of the judgment can be obtained here.
Celine McDonagh v John McDonagh, [2015] IEHC 543.