Duggan v McDonald & ors [2016] IEHC 413 (19 July 2016)

Duggan v McDonald & ors [2016] IEHC 413 (19 July 2016)

Allowing the amendment would require the plaintiff to withdraw and recommence proceedings, moving the issue date forward by over four years and almost certainly resulting in the claim becoming statute barred. This prejudice is not merely procedural but substantive and irremediable, and is exacerbated by the defendant's delay in bringing the application. The application to amend the defence is therefore refused.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 413
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Duggan; First Named Defendant: Tom McDonald; Second Named Defendant: Brian Starken; Third Named Defendant: Eamonn Devlin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Defence in Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, Statute of Limitations, Prejudice in Procedural Amendments
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Law Amendment of Pleadings Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 Statute of Limitations Prejudice in Procedural Amendments

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Duggan

Plaintiff

Tom McDonald

First Named Defendant

Brian Starken

Second Named Defendant

Eamonn Devlin

Third Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Defence in Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first named defendant should be granted leave to amend his defence to plead non-compliance with the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether permitting the amendment would cause irremediable prejudice to the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

Allowing the amendment would require the plaintiff to withdraw and recommence proceedings, moving the issue date forward by over four years and almost certainly resulting in the claim becoming statute barred. This prejudice is not merely procedural but substantive and irremediable, and is exacerbated by the defendant's delay in bringing the application. The application to amend the defence is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to amend defence refused