Ryanair Ltd -v- Goss [2015] IEHC 874 (20 October 2016)

Ryanair Ltd -v- Goss [2015] IEHC 874 (20 October 2016)

The plaintiff already had sufficient particulars to deliver its reply and defence to the counterclaim, and the further particulars sought were either unnecessary or amounted to seeking evidence rather than clarifying the nature of the case. No special reason was advanced to justify ordering further particulars before reply.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 874
Parties
Plaintiff: Ryanair Limited; Defendant: John Goss
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars Prior to Reply and Defence to Counterclaim
Outcome
Application for further and better particulars refused.
Legal Topics
Particulars in Pleadings, Order 19(7) Rules of the Superior Courts, Abuse of Process, Scope of Particulars in Defamation Actions
Defamation Civil Procedure Particulars in Pleadings Order 19(7) Rules of the Superior Courts Abuse of Process Scope of Particulars in Defamation Actions

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryanair Limited

Plaintiff

John Goss

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars Prior to Reply and Defence to Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to further and better particulars from the defendant under Order 19(7) RSC prior to reply and defence to counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the requests for particulars constitute an abuse of process or are oppressive
  3. 3 Whether the particulars sought are necessary or desirable to enable the plaintiff to plead

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff already had sufficient particulars to deliver its reply and defence to the counterclaim, and the further particulars sought were either unnecessary or amounted to seeking evidence rather than clarifying the nature of the case. No special reason was advanced to justify ordering further particulars before reply.

Court Disposition

Application for further and better particulars refused.

Orders

  • Refusal of the plaintiff's application for further and better particulars.
  • Extension of time for delivery of reply and defence to counterclaim by four weeks.