Croke -v- Waterford Crystal [2004] IESC 97 (26 November 2004)

Croke -v- Waterford Crystal [2004] IESC 97 (26 November 2004)

Leave to amend the Statement of Claim is granted against the first-named respondent as the amendments are clarificatory and necessary to determine the real issues, but refused against the second-named respondent due to lack of factual basis for fraud or conspiracy. Leave to deliver a Reply to the defences is granted for both respondents, subject to procedural directions.

Citation
[2004] IESC 97
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Walter Croke; First Respondent/respondent: Waterford Crystal Limited; Second Respondent/respondent: Irish Pensions Trust Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Statute of Limitations, Fraud, Breach of Duty, Pension Law
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Statute of Limitations Fraud Breach of Duty Pension Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Croke

Plaintiff/appellant

Waterford Crystal Limited

First Respondent/respondent

Irish Pensions Trust Limited

Second Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim against the respondents to include allegations of fraud and conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to deliver a Reply to the defences of the respondents out of time

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the Statement of Claim is granted against the first-named respondent as the amendments are clarificatory and necessary to determine the real issues, but refused against the second-named respondent due to lack of factual basis for fraud or conspiracy. Leave to deliver a Reply to the defences is granted for both respondents, subject to procedural directions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Leave to amend the Statement of Claim against the first-named respondent, subject to re-amendment and court approval to exclude claims against the second-named respondent.
  • Leave to deliver a Reply to the Defence of the second-named respondent granted.