X.Y v Shine & Ors (Approved) [2020] IECA 23 (29 January 2020)

X.Y v Shine & Ors (Approved) [2020] IECA 23 (29 January 2020)

The claim against the Congregation is closely connected to the core claim of assault and intentional trespass to the person, being primarily one of vicarious liability and direct negligence for the alleged assault. As such, it falls within the exception in s. 1(3)(b) of the Courts Act 1988, entitling the plaintiff to a jury trial. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2020] IECA 23
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: X. Y.; Defendant: Michael Shine; Defendant/appellant: Doreen McEvoy; Defendant/appellant: Health Service Executive
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Regarding Entitlement to Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Assault, Intentional Trespass to the Person, Right to Jury Trial
Tort Law Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Negligence Assault Intentional Trespass to the Person Right to Jury Trial

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X. Y.

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Shine

Defendant

Doreen McEvoy

Defendant/appellant

Health Service Executive

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Regarding Entitlement to Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the Congregation (second defendant) falls within the exception in s. 1(3)(b) of the Courts Act 1988 entitling him to a jury trial
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the Congregation is sufficiently connected to the core claim of assault or intentional trespass to the person

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the Congregation is closely connected to the core claim of assault and intentional trespass to the person, being primarily one of vicarious liability and direct negligence for the alleged assault. As such, it falls within the exception in s. 1(3)(b) of the Courts Act 1988, entitling the plaintiff to a jury trial. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff is entitled to a civil jury trial against the Congregation (second defendant).