Previous Page  363 / 822 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 363 / 822 Next Page
Page Background

GAZETTE

JUNE 1988

the Court is unable to rule on the

validity of the claims made against

the constitutionality of S. 11 (2)(b)

of the Act of 1 957, it is proper to

point out that the justice and

fairness of a t t ach i ng to t hat

subsection a saver such as was

inserted by the British parliament in

S.1 of the Limitations Act, 1963,

are so obvious that the enactment

by our parliament of a similar

provision would merit urgent con-

sideration."

In

Norris -v- A. G.

[ 1984] I.R. 36

at p . 89 McCa r t hy J. in t he

Supreme Court in the course of a

dissenting judgment stated that it

was "fair to infer that the Court (in

Cahill

-v- Sutton)

i n c l i n ed t o t h e

view that the relevant subsection

of section 11 of the Act of 1957

was constitutionally invalid."

Fu r t her

s u p p o rt

for

t he

contention that, in the absence of

a date of discoverability rule, S. 11

(2)(b) would be held constitu-

tionally invalid comes from the very

case on which Lord Fraser in

Pirelli

placed so much emphasis, namely

the

Cartledge

case. That case

concerned the damage caused to

the lungs of an individual who was

susceptible to pneumoconiosis and

who inhaled noxious dust over a

period of years as a result of his

work. Lord Reid, at p.772, quoted

by Lord Fraser in

Pirelli,

stated as

follows:

" I t appea rs to me to be

unreasonable and unjustifiable in

principle that a cause of action

would be held to accrue before

it is possible to discover an

injury, and, therefore, before it

is possible to raise any action. If

this were a matter governed by

Common Law I would hold that

a cause of action ought not to be

held to accrue until either the

injured person has discovered

the injury or it would be possible

for him to discover it if he took

such steps as would be reason-

able in the circumstances. The

Common Law ought never to

produce a wholly unreasonable

r esu l t, nor ought e x i s t i ng

authorities to be read so literally

as to produce such a result in cir-

cumstances never contemplated

when they were decided."

Lord Pearce in the same case

was of a similar view when he said

that the argument of Counsel for

the Plaintiff — " wo u ld produce a

result according w i th common

sense and wo u ld avo id the

harshness and absurdity of a

limitation that in many cases must

bar the Plaintiff's cause of action

before he ought to have known

that he has one ".

Both Law Lords felt bound by

statute, a situation remedied soon

afterwards by the 1963 English

Statute of Limitations. However, if,

as Lord Reid stated, the Common

Law would insist on a date of dis-

c o v e r ab i l i ty

rule, t he

Irish

Constitution would demand it.

An American case directly in

po i nt is t h at of

William T. Urie -v-

Guy A. Thompson

( 1 9 4 9) 3 3 7

U.S. 163. This is a case wi th facts

quite similar to that of

Cartledge.

Here the Plaintiff worked for a

considerable number of years and

due to his work inhaled silicone

particles which led to a condition

known as silicosis whereby his

lungs were badly damaged. The

onset of such an industrial disease

is undiscoverable during its early

LEXIS

The worlds leading

computer-assisted

legal information

service.

SOLICITORS

This service is available

to you from the library

in the Incorporated

Law Society.

If you have a

legal research

problem, carefully

analyse the problenij

and decide the

relevant points

then phone

Margaret Byrne

Mary Gaynor,

who will

conduct a Lexis

Search for you.

ITELIS is

the sole

agent in

Tthe Republic

of Ireland

and Northern

Ireland for

LEXIS.

ITELIS is a

company jointly

owned by The

Irish Times and

Butterworths

the UK legal

publishers.

LEXIS because

of its speed

is a cost -

effective andi

powerful

research

tool.

For further

details including a

demonstration

contact:—

9 D'OLIER ST.,

DUBLIN 2.

Tel:717035/717087

Raymond Byrne and William Binchy

Annual Review

of Irish Law 1987

The

Annual Review of Irish Law 1987

gives to

practitioners and law students a comprehensive

analysis of developments in Irish law in 1987. For

the first time it will be possible to read a review of

the year's judicial decisions and statutory reforms,

on a subject-by-subject basis. These subjects

range widely including

constitutional law, torts,

family law, succession, contract, commercial law,

criminal law, evidence, administrative

law,

company law, taxation, the conflict of laws and law

reform.

The review covers the cases decided through-

out 1987, as well as statutory developments within

that period. The authors seek to give the reader

comprehensive information as to what has taken

place, as well as providing commentary on these

developments.

The book will offer the reader immediate and

detailed access to what has been taking place in

the courts and the Oireachtas. £35.00 (June)

THE ROUND HALL PRESS,

Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin. Tel: 892922

T i l l : R O U N D O

H A LL P R E SS

127