Boland v. Dublin Corporation [2002] IESC 69 (15 October 2002)

Boland v. Dublin Corporation [2002] IESC 69 (15 October 2002)

The First Named Third Party failed to demonstrate that its motion to set aside the Third Party Notice was brought as soon as reasonably possible, as required by Section 27(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act, 1961. The unexplained delay of approximately seventeen months between service of the notice and the motion to set aside was unjustified. The onus was on the Third Party to justify the delay, which it failed to do. Therefore, the application to set aside the Third Party Notice must fail.

Citation
[2002] IESC 69
Parties
Plaintiff: John Boland; Defendant/appellant: The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin (Dublin Corporation); First Named Third Party/respondent: David Mayrs Limited; Second Named Third Party/respondent: Colourman (International) Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Setting Aside Third Party Notice
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; relief sought by First Named Third Party refused.
Legal Topics
Third Party Procedure, Contribution, Concurrent Wrongdoers, Time Limits for Applications
Civil Procedure Tort Law Third Party Procedure Contribution Concurrent Wrongdoers Time Limits for Applications

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Boland

Plaintiff

The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin (Dublin Corporation)

Defendant/appellant

David Mayrs Limited

First Named Third Party/respondent

Colourman (International) Limited

Second Named Third Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Setting Aside Third Party Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Named Third Party's motion to set aside the Third Party Notice was brought 'as soon as reasonably possible' under Section 27(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act, 1961
  2. 2 Whether delay in bringing the motion to set aside the Third Party Notice was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The First Named Third Party failed to demonstrate that its motion to set aside the Third Party Notice was brought as soon as reasonably possible, as required by Section 27(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act, 1961. The unexplained delay of approximately seventeen months between service of the notice and the motion to set aside was unjustified. The onus was on the Third Party to justify the delay, which it failed to do. Therefore, the application to set aside the Third Party Notice must fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; relief sought by First Named Third Party refused.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside.
  • Application to set aside the Third Party Notice refused.