University College Cork v The Electricity Supply Board (Approved) [2020] IESC 66 (21 October 2020)

University College Cork v The Electricity Supply Board (Approved) [2020] IESC 66 (21 October 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the cross-appeal should proceed as planned, as the possibility of further remittal or deferral does not justify preventing the hearing. ESB is entitled to argue for a higher percentage of contributory negligence, and should amend its notice of cross-appeal to clarify this issue remains open.

Citation
[2020] IESC 66
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: University College Cork - National University of Ireland; Defendant/respondent: The Electricity Supply Board
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Pre Hearing/case Management Ruling on Cross Appeal
Outcome
Cross-appeal to proceed as planned; ESB permitted to argue for higher contributory negligence; ESB to amend notice of cross-appeal.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Remittal to High Court, Scope of Appeal, Liability of Professional Advisers
Tort Law Civil Procedure Contributory Negligence Remittal to High Court Scope of Appeal Liability of Professional Advisers

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University College Cork - National University of Ireland

Plaintiff/appellant

The Electricity Supply Board

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Pre Hearing/case Management Ruling on Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cross-appeal on contributory negligence should proceed before remitted High Court issues are determined
  2. 2 Whether ESB can argue UCC is liable for acts of its professional advisers under s.35(1)(i) Civil Liability Act, 1961
  3. 3 Whether ESB can seek a higher percentage of contributory negligence against UCC than fixed by the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the cross-appeal should proceed as planned, as the possibility of further remittal or deferral does not justify preventing the hearing. ESB is entitled to argue for a higher percentage of contributory negligence, and should amend its notice of cross-appeal to clarify this issue remains open.

Court Disposition

Cross-appeal to proceed as planned; ESB permitted to argue for higher contributory negligence; ESB to amend notice of cross-appeal.

Orders

  • Cross-appeal to proceed on November 16 as planned
  • ESB to amend notice of cross-appeal to clarify issue of contributory negligence percentage remains open