Nolan -v- Carrick; O'Toole -v- Carrick [2013] IEHC 523 (25 October 2013)

Nolan -v- Carrick; O'Toole -v- Carrick [2013] IEHC 523 (25 October 2013)

The application under Order 36, rule 33 was refused because the defendant was aware of the trial, made a deliberate decision not to attend, and there was no accident, mistake, or surprise; the application was also out of time. The application under the inherent jurisdiction was refused because an appeal was available to the defendant, and the exceptional circumstances required to invoke the jurisdiction were not established. Even if considered, the evidence did not demonstrate that the defendant lacked capacity to defend himself at the relevant time.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 523
Parties
Plaintiff: Geraldine Nolan; Plaintiff: Jacqueline O'Toole; Defendant: Joseph Carrick
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Application to Set Aside Judgment and Verdict
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Inherent Jurisdiction, Mental Capacity, Finality of Judgments, Sexual Abuse Damages
Civil Procedure Tort Law Setting Aside Judgment Inherent Jurisdiction Mental Capacity Finality of Judgments Sexual Abuse Damages

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geraldine Nolan

Plaintiff

Jacqueline O'Toole

Plaintiff

Joseph Carrick

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Application to Set Aside Judgment and Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should set aside the judgment and verdict under Order 36, rule 33 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether the court should set aside the judgment and verdict under its inherent jurisdiction due to alleged lack of mental capacity of the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The application under Order 36, rule 33 was refused because the defendant was aware of the trial, made a deliberate decision not to attend, and there was no accident, mistake, or surprise; the application was also out of time. The application under the inherent jurisdiction was refused because an appeal was available to the defendant, and the exceptional circumstances required to invoke the jurisdiction were not established. Even if considered, the evidence did not demonstrate that the defendant lacked capacity to defend himself at the relevant time.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Refusal of application to set aside judgment and verdict under Order 36, rule 33
  • Refusal of application to set aside judgment and verdict under inherent jurisdiction