Bird by her next friend Bird v Connell

In the case of Bird by her next friend Bird v Connell, the plaintiff, a child who had been seriously injured in a car accident in 2012, sought an extension of time to commence proceedings against the defendant, who had admitted liability for the accident. The plaintiff, who was seven years old at the time of the accident, had pre-existing disabilities which meant that the mental injuries she suffered were not recognised until later. The proceedings were commenced one year after the limitation period had expired. The plaintiff’s mother, who was her tutor, had neglected to pursue the claim, and the plaintiff was not informed of the expiry of the limitation period until shortly before proceedings were commenced. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing the proceedings.

The legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing the proceedings. The court noted that the plaintiff’s pre-existing disabilities had prevented the early recognition of her injuries, which provided a basis for the delay. The court also took into account the neglect of the plaintiff’s claim by the solicitors consulted by the plaintiff’s mother, and the fact that the plaintiff’s mother was not informed of the expiry of the limitation period until shortly before proceedings were commenced. The court held that the plaintiff had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay and granted the extension of time for the commencement of the proceedings.

The court ordered that the time for the commencement of the proceedings be extended to the date of the statement of claim filed in these proceedings, namely 17 May 2016. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs. The plaintiff was also granted liberty to restore in relation to the costs, and the exhibits were to be retained for 28 days.