This is the Irish Times article on the court case
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...-register-property-high-court-rules-1.1589158
And this is the court judgment
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...18ef610110db7abc80257c290040b1f1?OpenDocument
and here is a copy paste of point 61
61. As I have already indicated, I am satisfied that the defendant firm was negligent in not having ensured that the plaintiff's title was properly registered by the time the plaintiff was trying to dispose of the property. It owed the plaintiff company a duty of care in that regard as a result of its retainer to act in the purchase in 1994. Their duty was a continuing one. It failed to bring the problem to the purchaser's attention at any earlier stage. If it had, I have little doubt that the plaintiff company would have been sufficiently concerned to have ensured that the necessary steps were taken to have matters completed. In as much as the defendant has pleaded the Statute of Limitations in this case, though I have to say it was not pursued with any vigour, if at all, I am completely satisfied that it was not correctly relied upon in this case. The plaintiff did not know of the negligent act until it took steps in response to information provided to it by Mr Harvey on behalf of Mr Harris. The defendant firm ought to have kept the plaintiff appraised of the difficulties which were encountered in the Land Registry but did not. They cannot rely on the plaintiff’s failure to act sooner.
The really relevant bit is bolded.
So how is this relevant in other cases. Well it seems to me that because the statute of limitations can not be relied upon if the plaintiff did not know about the negligent act until later it would imply in the case of mis selling, or other wrong doing by banks etc, that when it comes to one's attention, which would be long after the original 6 years were up that if it only came to one's attention then, the bank could not rely on the statute of limitations as a defense. Not sure but I guess what it means is that the 6 years only begins when it comes to one's attention.
Therefore anyone going to the Ombusman if he says you've no case because of the statute of limitations, well you can quote him a High Court judgement which quite clearly is now the law, the definitive decision on the applicaiton of the statute of limitations and the ombudsman, where you can prove that you only knew of the problem/issue recently rather than more than 6 years ago, well Ombudsman will have to ignore the 6 year rule.
In fact if what I've stated above is correct, the ombudsman should reopen many cases, including my own mis selling case. I had a judgment/decision/ruling from the Ombudsman's office that disallowed my claim because of the 6 year rule. That decision was this year. I'm wondering now what I can do, on radio the Ombudsman did state that poster on her Padkiss could go back to him with any case where he, Padkiss thought the Ombudsman was not being consistent. I wonder can I get my case relooked at.
I'd be very interested in any legal opinions on whether my understanding of Section 61 of this court case is correct. It could have a momentous effect on many things, and is absulutely a good day for consumers and the little people in general. Me being one of them.
Naturally enough, the above court case could be overturned at Supreme Court state, if appealed, or if this point on the statute of limitations were to come up in another case.