McHugh v The Office of the Revenue Commissioners & Ors [2020] IECA 9 (30 January 2020)

McHugh v The Office of the Revenue Commissioners & Ors [2020] IECA 9 (30 January 2020)

There was no credible evidence to support the finding that a tripping hazard existed at the location where the plaintiff fell. The High Court judge erred by relying on speculative expert evidence and filling evidential gaps, failing to meet the burden of proof required for liability.

Citation
[2020] IECA 9
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Geraldine McHugh; Defendant/appellant: The Office of the Revenue Commissioners; Defendant/appellant: The Minister for Social Protection; Defendant/appellant: Ireland; Defendant/appellant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Negligence, Burden of Proof, Expert Evidence
Tort Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Negligence Burden of Proof Expert Evidence

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

Parties

Geraldine McHugh

Plaintiff/respondent

The Office of the Revenue Commissioners

Defendant/appellant

The Minister for Social Protection

Defendant/appellant

Ireland

Defendant/appellant

The Attorney General

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were negligent in maintaining the courtyard paving.
  2. 2 Whether a tripping hazard existed at the location of the plaintiff's fall.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court judge erred in finding liability and awarding damages.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no credible evidence to support the finding that a tripping hazard existed at the location where the plaintiff fell. The High Court judge erred by relying on speculative expert evidence and filling evidential gaps, failing to meet the burden of proof required for liability.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court judgment set aside
  • No liability found against defendants