Robins -v- Coleman & Ors [2009] IEHC 486 (06 November 2009)

Robins -v- Coleman & Ors [2009] IEHC 486 (06 November 2009)

Given the complexity and evolving nature of the plaintiff's claim, the lack of prejudice to the third party, and the need to avoid multiplicity of actions, the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants acted 'as soon as is reasonably possible' in serving third party notices under s.27(1)(b) Civil Liability Act 1961; the application to set aside the notices is refused.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 486
Parties
Plaintiff: Ronald Robins; Defendant: Terence Coleman; Defendant: Anita Coleman; Defendant: Agulhas Resources Inc.; Defendant: Pierse Building Services Limited; Defendant: Charlie Donnelly and Mark Turpin trading as Donnelly Turpin Architects; Third Party: O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings / Judgment on Motion to Set Aside Third Party Notices
Outcome
Application to set aside third party notices refused
Legal Topics
Third Party Procedure, Professional Negligence, Contribution, Delay in Service of Third Party Notice
Civil Procedure Tort Law Third Party Procedure Professional Negligence Contribution Delay in Service of Third Party Notice

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Robins

Plaintiff

Terence Coleman

Defendant

Anita Coleman

Defendant

Agulhas Resources Inc.

Defendant

Pierse Building Services Limited

Defendant

Charlie Donnelly and Mark Turpin trading as Donnelly Turpin Architects

Defendant

O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings / Judgment on Motion to Set Aside Third Party Notices

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether third party notices were served 'as soon as is reasonably possible' under s.27(1)(b) Civil Liability Act 1961
  2. 2 Whether delay in serving third party notices justifies setting aside the notices
  3. 3 Relevance of prejudice to third party in delay analysis

Ratio Decidendi

Given the complexity and evolving nature of the plaintiff's claim, the lack of prejudice to the third party, and the need to avoid multiplicity of actions, the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants acted 'as soon as is reasonably possible' in serving third party notices under s.27(1)(b) Civil Liability Act 1961; the application to set aside the notices is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside third party notices refused

Orders

  • Third party notices served by fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants on O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates Limited are valid and not set aside