Briedis v Ryan Investments Trading As Hertz Rent A Car & Anor (Approved) [2020] IEHC 640 (30 November 2020)

Briedis v Ryan Investments Trading As Hertz Rent A Car & Anor (Approved) [2020] IEHC 640 (30 November 2020)

The plaintiff's unexplained and prolonged delay in seeking remittal, after knowledge that the claim was within the Circuit Court's jurisdiction, resulted in significant High Court costs being incurred. The interests of justice require refusal of the remittal application, as granting it now would be unfair to the defendant and would not result in any real saving of costs or judicial resources. The court retains discretion and is not obliged to remit even if the case is not fit for the High Court.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 640
Parties
Plaintiff: Janis Briedis; First Defendant: Ryan Investments Trading As Hertz Rent A Car; Second Defendant: Martin Puce
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Motion to Remit Proceedings From High Court to Circuit Court
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Remittal of Proceedings, Costs Orders, Jurisdiction, Delay in Application, Personal Injuries, Loss of Earnings Claim
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Remittal of Proceedings Costs Orders Jurisdiction Delay in Application Personal Injuries Loss of Earnings Claim

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janis Briedis

Plaintiff

Ryan Investments Trading As Hertz Rent A Car

First Defendant

Martin Puce

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Motion to Remit Proceedings From High Court to Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be remitted from the High Court to the Circuit Court under O.63, r.1(33) of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's delay in seeking remittal affects entitlement to relief
  3. 3 What costs orders, if any, should be made in the event of remittal

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's unexplained and prolonged delay in seeking remittal, after knowledge that the claim was within the Circuit Court's jurisdiction, resulted in significant High Court costs being incurred. The interests of justice require refusal of the remittal application, as granting it now would be unfair to the defendant and would not result in any real saving of costs or judicial resources. The court retains discretion and is not obliged to remit even if the case is not fit for the High Court.

Court Disposition

application refused