A judge in Dublin´s High Court has ruled that Dublin´s bus company has to release CCTV footage to solicitors representing a claimant in a Dublin Bus injury claim.
The judgement was made by Mr Justice John Hedigan following years of stalling by the bus company and decisions made in the claimant´s favour by the Data Protection Commissioner and Judge Jacqueline Linnane in the Circuit Civil Court. The bus company had argued that the information they possessed about the claimant was privileged and, as potential evidence in litigation, they were not prepared to release it.
The Dublin Bus injury claim first started in October 2009, when a female claimant from Dublin alleged that she had sustained an injury aboard a Dublin Bus the previous year. Dublin Bus refused to accept liability for the woman´s injuries and the Injuries Board Ireland declined to assess her application for Dublin Bus injury compensation.
During preparation for court proceedings, the claimant´s solicitor were advised of the existence of CCTV footage taken aboard the bus and were shown a video relating to their client´s claim for Dublin Bus injury compensation at Dublin Bus´s office. A request for a copy of the video was denied and, even after the claimant´s solicitors had complained to the Data Protection Commissioner, Dublin Bus continued to withhold the CCTV footage.
Dublin Bus appealed the Data Protection Commissioner´s decision to release the video and took their case to the Circuit Civil Court. However, in July 2011, Judge Jacqueline Linnane ruled that the bus company should release the video to the solicitors on the grounds that the claimant had every right by law to request access to the CCTV footage in support of her Dublin Bus injury claim and that Dublin Bus had no right to withhold it.
Dublin Bus then chose to delay a resolution to the claim for Dublin Bus injury compensation by appealing Judge Linnane´s decision to the High Court, but Mr Justice John Hedigan found in favour of the claimant, stating that that Dublin Bus had “not raised a point of law giving rise to grounds for overturning Judge Linnane’s decision”.