Geaney & Ors -v- Pobalscoil Chorca Duibhne & Ors [2009] IEHC 267 (27 April 2009)

Geaney & Ors -v- Pobalscoil Chorca Duibhne & Ors [2009] IEHC 267 (27 April 2009)

The particulars sought by the defendants failed to comply with the legal tests for particulars, were oppressive, vexatious, and unreasonable, and amounted to interrogatories rather than clarifying the issues. The plaintiffs had already provided sufficient information, and the requests were not appropriate under Order 19, rule 7(1).

Citation
[2009] IEHC 267
Parties
Plaintiffs: Thomas Geaney & Ors.; First Defendant: Board of Management of Pobalscoil Chorca Dhuibhne; Second Defendant: Consolata Bracken; Third Defendant: Vivienne Dunne; Fourth Defendant: Barney O’Reilly; Fifth Defendant: Minister for Education and Science; Sixth Defendant: Ireland; Seventh Defendant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Further and Better Particulars / Interlocutory
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Particulars, Language of Instruction, Constitutional Rights
Civil Procedure Education Law Pleadings Particulars Language of Instruction Constitutional Rights

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Geaney & Ors.

Plaintiffs

Board of Management of Pobalscoil Chorca Dhuibhne

First Defendant

Consolata Bracken

Second Defendant

Vivienne Dunne

Third Defendant

Barney O’Reilly

Fourth Defendant

Minister for Education and Science

Fifth Defendant

Ireland

Sixth Defendant

Attorney General

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Further and Better Particulars / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to further and better particulars under Order 19, rule 7(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether the particulars sought comply with the purpose of pleadings as defined in Mahon v. Celbridge Spinning Company Limited

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars sought by the defendants failed to comply with the legal tests for particulars, were oppressive, vexatious, and unreasonable, and amounted to interrogatories rather than clarifying the issues. The plaintiffs had already provided sufficient information, and the requests were not appropriate under Order 19, rule 7(1).

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the first to fourth defendants’ application for further and better particulars.