Ahmed v Castlegrange Management Company Ltd By Guarantee & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 269 (23 November 2022)

Ahmed v Castlegrange Management Company Ltd By Guarantee & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 269 (23 November 2022)

The defendants did not owe a duty to grit the landing as such a requirement was not established by law, standard, or common practice. The plaintiff's pleadings were insufficient to support the claim, and the trial judge's findings were based on unpleaded and unsupported grounds. The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Citation
[2022] IECA 269
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Shakur Ahmed; Defendant/appellant: Castlegrange Management Company Limited By Guarantee; Defendant/appellant: Castlegrange Square Management Company Limited By Guarantee
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Pleadings, Personal Injury, Contributory Negligence
Tort Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Negligence Pleadings Personal Injury Contributory Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shakur Ahmed

Plaintiff/respondent

Castlegrange Management Company Limited By Guarantee

Defendant/appellant

Castlegrange Square Management Company Limited By Guarantee

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed a duty to grit the landing to prevent ice formation
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act, 1995
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's pleadings were sufficient to support the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not owe a duty to grit the landing as such a requirement was not established by law, standard, or common practice. The plaintiff's pleadings were insufficient to support the claim, and the trial judge's findings were based on unpleaded and unsupported grounds. The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing plaintiff's claim
  • Defendants entitled to costs in Court of Appeal and High Court, subject to written submissions within 14 days