Kilcoyne v. Westport Textiles Ltd. (In Voluntary Liquidation) & Anor [2006] IEHC 256 (26 July 2006)

Kilcoyne v. Westport Textiles Ltd. (In Voluntary Liquidation) & Anor [2006] IEHC 256 (26 July 2006)

The claim against the second defendant, as currently pleaded, is unsustainable and discloses no reasonable cause of action. The plaintiff failed to amend the Statement of Claim to properly set out the claim against the second defendant despite ample opportunity. Accordingly, the claim must be struck out under Order 19 Rule 28.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 256
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Kilcoyne; First Defendant: Westport Textiles Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation); Second Defendant: Royal and Sun Alliance Plc
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Plenary Summons / Motion to Strike Out Claim Against Second Defendant
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the second defendant struck out
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Striking Out Pleadings, Delay in Prosecution, Indemnity Under Civil Liability Act 1961
Tort Law Civil Procedure Insurance Law Employer's Liability Negligence Striking Out Pleadings Delay in Prosecution Indemnity Under Civil Liability Act 1961

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Kilcoyne

Plaintiff

Westport Textiles Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation)

First Defendant

Royal and Sun Alliance Plc

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Summons / Motion to Strike Out Claim Against Second Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the second defendant should be struck out for want of prosecution, delay, or as frivolous/vexatious

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the second defendant, as currently pleaded, is unsustainable and discloses no reasonable cause of action. The plaintiff failed to amend the Statement of Claim to properly set out the claim against the second defendant despite ample opportunity. Accordingly, the claim must be struck out under Order 19 Rule 28.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the second defendant struck out

Orders

  • Claim against Royal and Sun Alliance Plc struck out pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts