Searson v Dublin City Council & Ors [2020] IEHC 75 (21 February 2020)

Searson v Dublin City Council & Ors [2020] IEHC 75 (21 February 2020)

The court lacks jurisdiction under Order 50, rule 2 to order an early trial in the absence of an interlocutory application, and it is inappropriate to direct an early trial when pleadings have not closed and no defence has been filed.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 75
Parties
Plaintiff: John M. Searson; First Defendant: Dublin City Council; Second Defendant: Bobby Aylward; Third Defendant: Peter Burke; Fourth Defendant: Shane Cassells; Fifth Defendant: Catherine Connolly; Sixth Defendant: David Cullinane; Seventh Defendant: Pat Dearing; Eighth Defendant: Alan Farrell; Ninth Defendant: Sean Fleming; Tenth Defendant: Alan Kelly; Eleventh Defendant: Mark MacSharry; Twelfth Defendant: Catherine Murphy; Thirteenth Defendant: Jonathan O’Brien; Fourteenth Defendant: Kate O’Connell
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Action / Interlocutory Application for Early Trial
Outcome
Application for early trial refused; reliefs at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice of motion refused.
Legal Topics
Early Trial Applications, Jurisdiction of Court, Pleadings Closure, Mediation
Civil Procedure Early Trial Applications Jurisdiction of Court Pleadings Closure Mediation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John M. Searson

Plaintiff

Dublin City Council

First Defendant

Bobby Aylward

Second Defendant

Peter Burke

Third Defendant

Shane Cassells

Fourth Defendant

Catherine Connolly

Fifth Defendant

David Cullinane

Sixth Defendant

Pat Dearing

Seventh Defendant

Alan Farrell

Eighth Defendant

Sean Fleming

Ninth Defendant

Alan Kelly

Tenth Defendant

Mark MacSharry

Eleventh Defendant

Catherine Murphy

Twelfth Defendant

Jonathan O’Brien

Thirteenth Defendant

Kate O’Connell

Fourteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Action / Interlocutory Application for Early Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order an early trial under Order 50, rule 2 in the absence of an interlocutory application
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is precluded from making a second application for early trial after a previous refusal
  3. 3 Whether an early trial can be ordered when pleadings have not closed

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction under Order 50, rule 2 to order an early trial in the absence of an interlocutory application, and it is inappropriate to direct an early trial when pleadings have not closed and no defence has been filed.

Court Disposition

Application for early trial refused; reliefs at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice of motion refused.

Orders

  • First defendant to issue motion for extension of time to file defence within three weeks.