Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The issue Deputy Wallace has raised is interesting. The issue of limitation periods merits consideration and probably merits legislative intervention at some stage. It is important people understand what a limitation period is. In a way, a limitation period is a restriction on the rights of an individual or a company. It seeks to say that one may have a right in cause of action to sue another person, but must exercise that right within a certain period of time. One of the things Deputy Wallace has drawn attention to is that there are many different time periods for limitation actions in our law at present. For instance, if one of us goes out of here this evening and is knocked down by a car, one has to institute proceedings within a two-year period in order to sue the person responsible if he or she is negligent. However, if there is a breach of contract, the person or company has to be sued within a six-year period.

If a family member has been involved in a fatal injury proceedings must be instituted within two years. The trend in recent times in western democracies is to reduce limitation periods. We have to be cautious of that. For instance, in Ireland at present we have reduced the limitation period for defamation actions to one year. That means that one must institute a defamation action within a year. If that is not done, one has the opportunity to make an application to court in the second year but after that the cause of action is gone. I have pointed out in the Committee on Justice and Equality on a previous occasion that sometimes defamatory comments about an individual can be posted on an Internet site. The time period starts to run from the time it is initially posted. An individual may not become aware of that for a year or two. The website on which the defamatory comments are based may suddenly become much more popular, and then this material is left on it, with the individual having no cause of action to pursue the defamer because of the fact that their rights have been extinguished by the limitation period.

In respect of other causes of action, it should be noted that for an assault one has six years within which to sue. However, in maritime actions it must be done in two years. Children involved in personal injuries actions must take a case within two years of reaching the age of 18. In fairness to Deputy Wallace, he has identified that our limitation law probably does need to be examined more closely and perhaps should be more harmonised. I urge a point of caution, however, because individuals sometimes do not become aware when a contract to which they are a party has been breached. Under the law at present one has six years within which to initiate a breach of contract claim. However, we have seen in decisions of the Supreme Court that it can be the case that a person does not become aware of his or her cause of action for a time and that can result in an unfairness to an individual who wants to pursue an action. That happens and can happen particularly in areas of professional negligence where there may be a contract between an individual and their professional adviser or a duty of care in tort. However, if the cause of action and the breach of contract occurred six years previously, one cannot take an action after that.

Deputy Wallace's intentions in this Bill are good. He seeks to protect the small man and woman when it comes to the actions of banks and vulture funds. However, it should be pointed out that internationally, those who really push for restriction on limitation actions and who want them to be reduced to smaller periods generally are businesses that do not want to be sued by individuals and the manner in which they can restrict that is by stating there is a certain period in which to sue and that is it. I note, however, that is not Deputy Wallace's intention. He has stated in the Long Title that he wants to change the Statute of Limitations in order that the time limit for causes of actions in respect of banks and vulture funds is changed from six years to two years. That may be his intention. My concern is that is not the effect of the Bill. Section 11 of the Statute of Limitations 1957, as amended in 1991 and other legislation, governs all causes of actions in contract and tort. Although Deputy Wallace wishes to limit it to actions being brought by vulture funds and banks, it will not be limited to them because it will apply to every person. It will apply to the small man as well as to the bank.

When it comes to the law, the large companies, banks and large corporations are fully aware of what are their legal rights. It is the smaller person who sometimes is not fully aware of it. It is not unusual that persons only become aware after a number of years that they have a cause of action or a legitimate claim. Sometimes people do not become aware of that until they get professional advice. One thing that banks and vulture funds are not short of is professional advice. Were this legislation to be introduced and were the limitation period to be subsequently reduced from six to two years for contract claims, it would not cause any problems for vulture funds or banks. They would simply institute their proceedings within two years.

An argument is made that people are better off having the claims initiated promptly. I disagree. Sometimes individuals are better off not having claims forced against them promptly. Their financial position can improve. Their property values can rise, and because of that - and we have seen it happen - sometimes they can get through their financial difficulties.

There are a number of other issues in respect of the proposed legislation, one of which is in the area of tort. The Bill proposes that the period for tort shall be reduced from six years to two years in section 11(2)(a) of the principal Act. Again, we have to be cautious of this. At present there are many financial institutions who are taking claims against individuals. All of those claims, I suspect, are claims in contract rather than tort. Tort is the great cause of action that gives the individual the right to state he or she is in a relationship and is owed a duty of care by an individual or company that has been breached. As the individual or company has been negligent, one is entitled to institute a claim for damages against that person or company. If we reduce the term from six years to two years, it will be of no disadvantage to banks or vulture funds. It will, however, be a disadvantage to the small man or woman Deputy Wallace is seeking to protect because they will find themselves in situations where they cannot bring their claim after two years. Any individual acquainted with claims made in tort or professional negligence is aware that on many occasions, it takes individuals a number of years to figure out that they have been the victim of negligence on the part of a professional adviser or of a person who owes them a duty of care.

Deputy Wallace has identified that the Law Reform Commission produced a report on limitation periods in 2011. It sought to harmonise limitation periods. It is an area that should be looked at. However, we should be cautious about limiting periods by too much. One should remember that limitation periods are restrictions on the rights of individuals. This is directed at banks and vulture funds but it will have an effect beyond that. I thank Deputy Wallace for introducing the Bill.

See this speech in context