Forde v. Dublin Bus [2003] IEHC 621 (13 March 2003)

Forde v. Dublin Bus [2003] IEHC 621 (13 March 2003)

The Master held that the discovery sought by the plaintiff was not necessary, as the plaintiff already had sufficient proof from the occurrence of the incident itself, and the request amounted to a fishing expedition rather than a targeted search for material facts.

Citation
[2003] IEHC 621
Parties
Plaintiff: Damien Forde; Defendant: Dublin Bus
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Discovery Application Before the Master of the High Court
Outcome
Discovery application refused in substantial part
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Discovery, Novus Actus Interveniens
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Vicarious Liability Discovery Novus Actus Interveniens

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damien Forde

Plaintiff

Dublin Bus

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Discovery Application Before the Master of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dublin Bus was negligent in failing to prevent the assault on the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the actions of a third party (throwing diesel) constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation
  3. 3 Whether the discovery sought by the plaintiff is necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Master held that the discovery sought by the plaintiff was not necessary, as the plaintiff already had sufficient proof from the occurrence of the incident itself, and the request amounted to a fishing expedition rather than a targeted search for material facts.

Court Disposition

Discovery application refused in substantial part

Orders

  • Discovery limited to documentation relating to prior incidents (category (b)) as agreed by defendant; remainder of discovery refused