Purcell v. Taylor & Ors [2004] IEHC 118 (26 May 2004)

Purcell v. Taylor & Ors [2004] IEHC 118 (26 May 2004)

The plaintiff's solicitor's affidavit established that the earliest date of knowledge of the applicant's possible liability was 23 May 2003, entitling the plaintiff to the benefit of s.2 of the 1991 Act. There is insufficient evidence to conclude the claim is clearly statute barred at this stage.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 118
Parties
Plaintiff: David Purcell; Defendants: Raymond Taylor and Maria Taylor, trading as The Star Tavern; Defendant (applicant): Dermot Nolan; Defendant: Michael O'Halloran
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Civil Action / Appeal From Order Adding Defendant
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Joinder of Parties, Personal Injury
Civil Procedure Tort Law Statute of Limitations Joinder of Parties Personal Injury

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Purcell

Plaintiff

Raymond Taylor and Maria Taylor, trading as The Star Tavern

Defendants

Dermot Nolan

Defendant (applicant)

Michael O'Halloran

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Civil Action / Appeal From Order Adding Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the applicant is statute barred under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should remain joined as a defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's solicitor's affidavit established that the earliest date of knowledge of the applicant's possible liability was 23 May 2003, entitling the plaintiff to the benefit of s.2 of the 1991 Act. There is insufficient evidence to conclude the claim is clearly statute barred at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Refusal to interfere with the Master's order adding the applicant as defendant
  • Pleadings of the added defendants to be closed