O'Byrne v Michael Stein Travel Ltd & ors [2012] IESC 62 (19 December 2012)

O'Byrne v Michael Stein Travel Ltd & ors [2012] IESC 62 (19 December 2012)

The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to provide any or any adequate explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking to join the appellants as third parties. The onus was on the respondent to explain the delay, and in the absence of such explanation, the High Court erred in refusing to set aside the third party notice. Time runs from the date when the defence should have been delivered, not from the date of any amendment to the defence.

Citation
[2012] IESC 62
Parties
Plaintiff: Robert O’Byrne; Defendant/respondent: Michael Stein Travel Limited; First Named Third Party/appellant: Robert O’Byrne, Senior; Second Named Third Party/appellant: Charis O’Byrne
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Refusing to Set Aside Third Party Notice
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order refusing to set aside third party notice set aside
Legal Topics
Third Party Procedure, Delay in Litigation, Contribution and Indemnity, Personal Injuries, Parental Duty of Care
Civil Procedure Tort Law Third Party Procedure Delay in Litigation Contribution and Indemnity Personal Injuries Parental Duty of Care

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert O’Byrne

Plaintiff

Michael Stein Travel Limited

Defendant/respondent

Robert O’Byrne, Senior

First Named Third Party/appellant

Charis O’Byrne

Second Named Third Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Refusing to Set Aside Third Party Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to set aside the third party notice against the appellants due to inordinate and unexplained delay by the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the respondent provided adequate explanation for the delay in seeking to join the appellants as third parties

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to provide any or any adequate explanation for the inordinate delay in seeking to join the appellants as third parties. The onus was on the respondent to explain the delay, and in the absence of such explanation, the High Court erred in refusing to set aside the third party notice. Time runs from the date when the defence should have been delivered, not from the date of any amendment to the defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order refusing to set aside third party notice set aside

Orders

  • Third party notice against the appellants set aside