Agnes Armstrong v Sean Moffatt & Ors [2013] IEHC 148 (28 March 2013)

Agnes Armstrong v Sean Moffatt & Ors [2013] IEHC 148 (28 March 2013)

The majority of the defendants’ requests for particulars were disallowed as they were either irrelevant, unnecessary, or outside the permissible scope of particulars under Order 19, rule 7 and the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. Only those particulars expressly required by s.11 of the 2004 Act must be answered...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 148
Parties
Plaintiff: Agnes Armstrong; Defendant: Sean Moffatt; Defendant: Thomas Moffatt t/a Ballina Medical Centre; Defendant: Maura Irwin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Application / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
Majority of defendants’ requests for particulars disallowed; plaintiff required to answer only those particulars mandated by s.11 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and to clarify the statutory duty claim as indicated.
Legal Topics
Particulars in Pleadings, Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, Personal Injury Litigation, Scope of Interrogatories, Relevance of Particulars
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Particulars in Pleadings Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 Personal Injury Litigation Scope of Interrogatories Relevance of Particulars

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agnes Armstrong

Plaintiff

Sean Moffatt

Defendant

Thomas Moffatt t/a Ballina Medical Centre

Defendant

Maura Irwin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Application / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 To what extent is the plaintiff required to respond to a notice for particulars in a personal injury case post-Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004?
  2. 2 What is the permissible scope of particulars under Order 19, rule 7 in light of the 2004 Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the defendants’ requests for particulars were disallowed as they were either irrelevant, unnecessary, or outside the permissible scope of particulars under Order 19, rule 7 and the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. Only those particulars expressly required by s.11 of the 2004 Act must be answered by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Majority of defendants’ requests for particulars disallowed; plaintiff required to answer only those particulars mandated by s.11 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and to clarify the statutory duty claim as indicated.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to answer particulars falling within s.11 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004.
  • Plaintiff to correspond with defendants to confirm the nature of the claim under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995.