Previous Page  93 / 482 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 93 / 482 Next Page
Page Background

GAZETTE

MARCH 1989

ever, the damages recoverable

are limited to expenses

necessarily incurred in averting

that danger. The case cannot, in

my opinion, properly be adapted

to support the recovery of

damages for pure economic loss

going beyond that, and for the

reasons given by [Lord Bridge],

with whose analysis I respect-

fully agree, such loss is not in

principle recoverable in tort

unless the case can be brought

within the principle of reliance

established by the

Hed/ey Byrne

case."

Lord Oliver's hesitancy as to

whether costs incurred in prevent-

ing threatened damage to other

property fall within the range of

recovery is worth noting.

Imp l i ca t i ons for I r e l and

It is difficult to assess the likely

attitude of the Irish courts to

D. &

F. Estates.

Certainly in recent years,

the Supreme Court has generally

been more willing than the House

of Lords to embrace the practical

implications of the "neighbour"

and "proximity" tasks espoused in

Donoghue -v- Stevenson

and

Anns.

In

Ward -v- McMaster,

18

McCarthy,

J.'s judgment in particular shows a

strong disposition to steer Irish law

away from the retrenched position

prevailing in England, where it has

been said that "the picture has, in

some respects, become more

blurred with each new pronounce-

ment" of the House of Lords or the

Privy Council: Markensinis, 104

L.Q. Rev., at 9 (1988). In

Siney -v-

Dublin Corporation

,

19

Henchy, J.

referred with apparent approval to

Anns

and

Batty,

though he did

acknowledge that the "precise

conditions or limitations" of the

liability established in these and

other decisions did not need to be

considered in

Siney.

In

Coigan -v- Connolly Con-

struction Company (Ireland) Ltd.,

20

McMahon, J. had already invoked

Anns

and

Barry

when endorsing

the

principle

of

allowing

compensation in tort for expenses

in preventing threatened injury or

damage, now challenged in

D. & F.

Estates.

It is, however, worth noting

that McMahon, J. was not

disposed to extend compensation

to cover "defects in the quality of

the product itself", where there

was no question of injury or

damage to persons affected by the

product.

21

To that very limited

extent, McMahon, J.'s judgment

found an echo in

D. & F. Estates.

In

Sunderland -v- McGreavy,

22

Lardner, J., having discussed

Coigan,

noted that the defects with

which he was concerned were

"likely to affect health and safety".

In view of the fact that the

plaintiffs' garden had already been

seriously flooded, resulting in the

escape of sewage from a septic

tank, the case can scarcely be

interpreted as raising the issue

confronting the House of Lords in

D. & F. Estates.

It is to be hoped that the Irish

courts resist the argument that

compensation should be denied for

expenses in preventing threatened

damage to the person or property.

Apart from the clear injustice and

arbitrariness of such a denial, it

scarcely makes good sense, as a

social policy, for the law in effect

to discourage people from

removing such dangers.

If our courts continue to

recognise the right of recovery for

these expenses, they will eventu-

ally have to confront subsidiary

issues, such as the circumstances,

if any, in which the prevention of

threatened damage to one's

product (where there is no danger

of damage to other property or of

personal injury) should give rise to

a claim. In answering this question,

the courts will be obliged to analyse

the notion of "danger" to a

product. This notion rests largely

on a metaphor, and it may be that

the courts will be disposed to treat

this type of "danger" differently

from cases where there is a real

danger of personal injury or of the

product causing damage to other

property. In this regard, the analysis

in

D. & F. Estates

regarding simple

and complex structures may prove

helpful.

As regards the Statute of

Limitations,

23

the Irish courts will

be required to consider whether the

clock should not start until the

threat to health and safety is

"imminent", as Lord Wilberforce

proposed in

Anns,

and, if so,

whether it should be supplemented

by a further requirement that such

imminent threat be reasonably dis-

coverable by the plaintiff. High

Court decisions on the general

subject are difficult to harmonise:

cf. the Law Reform Commission's

Report on the Statute of Limit

ations: Claims in Respect of Latent

Personal Injuries,

2

*

and

R.

Byrne &

W. Binchy,

Annual Review of Irish

Law 1987,

246-255 (1988). In

Hegarty -v- O'Loughran,

2

5

although

Barron,

J.

noted that reference had

been made in the course of

argument before him to sub-

missions in other cases on the

constitutional issue (highlighted by

Carroll,

J.,

in

Morgan -v- Park

Developments

Ltd.,

26

the

constitutional issues had not in fact

been raised during argument.

Subsequent to

Hegarty

-v-

O'Loughran,

Costello,

J.,

in

Brady -

v- Donegal County Council,

21

held

that an automatic two-month

limitation period in relation to

challenging planning decisions

offended against the Constitution.

On 17 October 1988, the Supreme

Court remitted the entire action for

retrial by the High Court. It remains

to be seen how the general issue

will finally be determined at

Supreme Court level. The decision

of the Supreme Court in

Toal -v-

Duignan

,

28

suggests that the Court

will not look with favour on an

unqualified discovery rule.*

* This article is written in a personal

capacity.

References

12. [1988] Camb. L.J., at 114.

13. Cf. Hampton,

The Liability Crisis,

U.K.-Style,

Financial Times, 12

October 1988,

Civil Liability Act

1961,

section 34(2)(d).

14. Cf.

Deegan -v- Langan,

[1966] I.R.

373

(Sup.Ct

.).)

15. Cf.

Conole -v- Redbank Oyster Co.,

[1976] I.R. 191 (Sup. Ct.),

Crowley

-v-Allied Irish Banks,

[1988] I.L.R.M.

225 (Sup. Ct.).

16. See Binchy, 80 Incorp. L. Society of

Ireland Gazette, at p. 38 (1986).

17. See further the Explanatory

Memorandum to the Draft

Directive, para. 20 (85/374/EEC,

published in the Official Journal of

the European Communities, No.

L210/29) Owles, Damage to

Property, 138 New L.J. 77 (1988).

18. 10 May 1988.

19. [1980] I.R. 400.

20. [1988] I.L.R.M. 33.

21. Cf. Kerr & Clark, 15 Ir. Jur. (n.s.), at

59 (1980).

22. [1987] I.R. 372, at 384.

23. as to which cf. Stapleton, 104

L.Q.Rev. 213, at 221ff (1988).

24. 2-6 (LRC 21 - 1987).

25. [1987] I.L.R.M. 604.

26. [1983] I.L.R.M. 156).

27. On 6 November 1987.

28. On 27 November 1987.

79