Publication
53645 (1 March 2021)
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
Claim Reference: 53645
Applicant: [ ]
Address: [ ]
Date of Birth: [ ]
PPS No.: [ ]
Date of incident: [ ]
Date application received by the Tribunal: [ ]
Legal Representation: [ ] [ ]
1. An application was made by the Applicant's legal advisors and namely [ ] [ ] on his behalf to the Tribunal on the [ ] some two years and ten months after the incident and injury arising complained of. [ ] have advised that the Applicant was assaulted by [ ] on the [ ] at a public house, in [ ]. The Applicant was admitted to [ ] in the early hours [ ] of the [ ] following the incident: The Applicant's wife reported to Hospital personnel that he had been hit a number of times and had fallen to the floor. According to a medical-legal report of [ ] furnished to the Tribunal, the Applicant had been drinking since 4pm on the day of the assault and was taken to [ ] by ambulance. The Applicant's blood alcohol was registered at 230 upon admission (with legal driving limit being 50). The Applicant claims to have no memories of the incident. The Applicant sustained inter alia head injuries; shoulder injury; hearing loss; tinnitus; loss of taste; and, personality/mood changes arising out of the assault.
2. According to the Applicant's legal advisors the assailant [ ] pleaded guilty to charges and received a [ ] handed down by [ ] Circuit Criminal Court on the [ ]. [ ] Solicitors wrote to the Gardaí seeking statements in respect of the case on the [ ] but by response, dated the [ ] Superintendent [ ] Garda Station refused to furnish same, on the basis of Garda confidentiality in the gathering of information for investigation purposes. [ ] (in his Report) records that he personally reported the matter to the Gardaí at 04.40 hours following admission of the Applicant to Hospital. There is no Garda report of the incident or its circumstances on the Applicant's file.
3. The reason set out for the delay in making the application to the Tribunal by [ ] was that the Applicant suffered severe trauma to his head and other serious injuries and he was unable to give instructions to apply for the Scheme within the prescribed timeframe. Further, it is stated on the Application that 'all matters were delayed pending the assessment carried out by the Applicant's neurological team to try to assess the brain damage. See Report dated [ ] [ ]. '
4. Notwithstanding the inability of the Applicant (or someone on his behalf), to give instructions to his legal advisors to submit an application to the Tribunal, he had the ability/capacity to instruct his legal advisors to undertake the necessary pre-litigation actions which ultimately resulted in a High Court personal injuries action being instituted, and in a timely manner.
5. Medical legal reports have been furnished to the Tribunal on behalf of the Applicant. The first of these, a medical-legal report, was prepared following examination of the Applicant by Mr [ ] at the request of [ ] Solicitors and is dated [ ]. Two further medical reports following examination of the Applicant on behalf of the Injuries Board, have been furnished by (a) Mr [ ] at [ ] and is dated [ ] and (b) by Mr [ ] which is dated [ ]. Thereafter, the High Court proceedings issued. Proceedings issued on the [ ] entitled [ ].
6. It is clear that the Applicant's legal advisors undertook all necessary pre-personal injury civil litigation steps, presumably on the instruction of the Applicant or on his behalf, dating back to at least [ ]. Despite this, there was a failure to submit an application to the Tribunal until the [ ]. That being so the Tribunal rejects this application on grounds of delay and the reasons given for said delay.
7. Pursuant to paragraph 21 of the Scheme an intending applicant must make such an application ' as soon as possible but, except in circumstances determined by the Tribunal to justify exceptional treatment, not later than three months after the event giving rise to the injury.'
8. In the instant case, necessary steps were taken by the Applicant, with the benefit and assistance of his legal advisors, back in [ ] to advance towards the institution of personal injuries proceedings in the civil courts. These steps are at odds with the reasons given for the delay in applying to the Tribunal, as set out in [ ] application i.e., his inability to give instructions until [ ]. This application was not made as soon as possible, nor within three months after the incident giving rise to the injury, and the stated reasons given for the very considerable delay in making the said application does not justify exceptional treatment, therefore the Tribunal rejects this application.
Tribunal Decision: Claim refused.
Date: 1 March 2021
[ ]
1 Those proceedings, according to a High Court Search on the Courts Service website remain in being. 'Anor', that is, a second party against whom the Applicant is seeking damages, is named in the said proceedings as [ ].