Fitzharris -v- O'Keeffe & Ors [2012] IEHC 481 (21 November 2012)

Fitzharris -v- O'Keeffe & Ors [2012] IEHC 481 (21 November 2012)

The proposed amendments were not necessary for clarifying the real questions of controversy, as the alleged wrongs occurred before the subsequent event relied upon by the defendants. The amendments would be irrelevant and confusing regarding liability. The delay in seeking amendment was unexplained and unjustified....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 481
Parties
Plaintiff: Jim Fitzharris; Defendant: Michael O’Keeffe; Defendant: Jimmy Dunne; Defendant: Richie McLoughlin; Defendant: Simon Devereux; Defendant: Christopher A. G. Gavican; Defendant: Turlough Coffey; Defendant: Michael Cunningham; Defendant: Eddie Kelly; Defendant: Sean Dorris; Defendant: Margaret Neil; Defendant: Gerard Burns; Defendant: Ray Devine; Defendant: Paddy McCarthy; Defendant: Michael Gilmartin; Defendant: Jim O’Connor
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Delay in Litigation, Contractual Disputes, Equitable Relief
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Delay in Litigation Contractual Disputes Equitable Relief

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jim Fitzharris

Plaintiff

Michael O’Keeffe

Defendant

Jimmy Dunne

Defendant

Richie McLoughlin

Defendant

Simon Devereux

Defendant

Christopher A. G. Gavican

Defendant

Turlough Coffey

Defendant

Michael Cunningham

Defendant

Eddie Kelly

Defendant

Sean Dorris

Defendant

Margaret Neil

Defendant

Gerard Burns

Defendant

Ray Devine

Defendant

Paddy McCarthy

Defendant

Michael Gilmartin

Defendant

Jim O’Connor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be granted leave to amend their defence to plead that the plaintiff's claim is moot and that he lacks locus standi due to subsequent events
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking amendment justifies refusal

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments were not necessary for clarifying the real questions of controversy, as the alleged wrongs occurred before the subsequent event relied upon by the defendants. The amendments would be irrelevant and confusing regarding liability. The delay in seeking amendment was unexplained and unjustified. Therefore, the application to amend the defence was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the application to amend the defence