Tracey t/a Engineering Design & Management -v- Burton & others [2016] IESC 16 (25 April 2016)

Tracey t/a Engineering Design & Management -v- Burton & others [2016] IESC 16 (25 April 2016)

The proceedings are not properly pleaded as defamation and do not entitle the appellant to a jury trial; the High Court judge acted correctly in transferring the case to the non-jury list and awarding costs, but the costs order should be set aside due to the appellant’s absence and lack of opportunity to be heard.

Citation
[2016] IESC 16
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Kevin Tracey t/a Engineering Design & Management; Defendant/respondent: Michael Burton; Defendant/respondent: Charles O’Connor; Defendant/respondent: Burton & O’Connor Limited; Defendant/respondent: FPQ Consulting Engineers
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Procedural Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except as to costs
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Right to Jury Trial, Defamation, Case Management, Costs Orders
Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Right to Jury Trial Defamation Case Management Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Tracey t/a Engineering Design & Management

Plaintiff/appellant

Michael Burton

Defendant/respondent

Charles O’Connor

Defendant/respondent

Burton & O’Connor Limited

Defendant/respondent

FPQ Consulting Engineers

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Procedural Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings are properly characterised as defamation entitling a jury trial
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in proceeding in the appellant’s absence and awarding costs
  3. 3 Whether the High Court judge was biased against the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings are not properly pleaded as defamation and do not entitle the appellant to a jury trial; the High Court judge acted correctly in transferring the case to the non-jury list and awarding costs, but the costs order should be set aside due to the appellant’s absence and lack of opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except as to costs

Orders

  • High Court order on costs set aside
  • Balance of case remitted to High Court for judge-alone determination