Hartigan -v- Donnelly & Ors [2007] IEHC 465 (25 July 2007)

Hartigan -v- Donnelly & Ors [2007] IEHC 465 (25 July 2007)

The first defendant served the third party notice as soon as was reasonably possible after receiving necessary particulars, and the delay was justified in the circumstances; the second defendant, despite excusable reasons, did not move as soon as reasonably possible, and the delay was not justified.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 465
Parties
Plaintiff: Jacqui Hartigan; First Defendant: Martin Donnelly; Second Defendant: Lowstrand Securities Limited; Third Defendant: Millstream Court Management Company Limited; Third Party: Padraig O’Cumin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action for Damages / Ruling on Third Party's Motion to Strike Out Third Party Notices
Outcome
Application to set aside third party notice refused as against first defendant; granted as against second defendant.
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Breach of Contractual Duty, Third Party Procedure, Joinder of Parties, Delay in Litigation
Tort Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Breach of Contractual Duty Third Party Procedure Joinder of Parties +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqui Hartigan

Plaintiff

Martin Donnelly

First Defendant

Lowstrand Securities Limited

Second Defendant

Millstream Court Management Company Limited

Third Defendant

Padraig O’Cumin

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action for Damages / Ruling on Third Party's Motion to Strike Out Third Party Notices

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third party notices were issued and served 'as soon as reasonably possible' under s.27(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act, 1961
  2. 2 Whether delay in issuing or serving third party notices justifies striking them out
  3. 3 Whether the third party's own delay in applying to set aside the notices is fatal to the application

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant served the third party notice as soon as was reasonably possible after receiving necessary particulars, and the delay was justified in the circumstances; the second defendant, despite excusable reasons, did not move as soon as reasonably possible, and the delay was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside third party notice refused as against first defendant; granted as against second defendant.

Orders

  • Third party notice issued and served by first defendant stands.
  • Third party notice issued and served by second defendant is set aside.