Smith v Cunnningham & ors p/a Paul Kelly and Company Solicitors [2018] IEHC 600 (30 October 2018)

Smith v Cunnningham & ors p/a Paul Kelly and Company Solicitors [2018] IEHC 600 (30 October 2018)

The plaintiff's cause of action accrued on 16 October 2008, when the contract for sale was rescinded and the plaintiff suffered loss. The claim is not statute barred as it was commenced within six years of this date.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 600
Parties
Plaintiff: Mark Smith; Defendant: Mark Cunningham; Defendant: Kevin Sorohan; Defendant: Anne Marie Sorohan; Defendant: Paul Kelly practising under the style and title of Paul Kelly and Company Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Negligence/breach of Duty/breach of Contract / Preliminary Application on Statute of Limitations
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim is not statute barred.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Negligence, Breach of Duty, Breach of Contract, Defective Title
Tort Law Contract Law Property Law Statute of Limitations Negligence Breach of Duty Breach of Contract Defective Title

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Smith

Plaintiff

Mark Cunningham

Defendant

Kevin Sorohan

Defendant

Anne Marie Sorohan

Defendant

Paul Kelly practising under the style and title of Paul Kelly and Company Solicitors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence/breach of Duty/breach of Contract / Preliminary Application on Statute of Limitations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the plaintiff's cause of action accrue for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957?
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff's claim statute barred?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's cause of action accrued on 16 October 2008, when the contract for sale was rescinded and the plaintiff suffered loss. The claim is not statute barred as it was commenced within six years of this date.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim is not statute barred.

Orders

  • Application by fourth named defendant dismissed.