Talbot -v- Hibernian Group PLC & Anor [2007] IEHC 385 (14 November 2007)

Talbot -v- Hibernian Group PLC & Anor [2007] IEHC 385 (14 November 2007)

The plaintiff's pleadings against the second named defendant failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, were frivolous and vexatious, and were not sufficiently particularised to support a maintainable claim. Even accepting the pleaded facts as true, no cause of action could be established against the union.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 385
Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas Talbot; First Named Defendant: Hibernian Group PLC; Second Named Defendant: Amicus the Union
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings / Application to Dismiss Claim Against Second Named Defendant; Motion for Judgment in Default of Defence
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the second named defendant dismissed; costs awarded to second named defendant with a stay.
Legal Topics
Dismissal of Proceedings, Reasonable Cause of Action, Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation, Union Representation, Statute of Limitations
Employment Law Civil Procedure Dismissal of Proceedings Reasonable Cause of Action Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation Union Representation Statute of Limitations

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Talbot

Plaintiff

Hibernian Group PLC

First Named Defendant

Amicus the Union

Second Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings / Application to Dismiss Claim Against Second Named Defendant; Motion for Judgment in Default of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the second named defendant
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are frivolous and vexatious as against the second named defendant
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings are sufficiently particularised to support a maintainable cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's pleadings against the second named defendant failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, were frivolous and vexatious, and were not sufficiently particularised to support a maintainable claim. Even accepting the pleaded facts as true, no cause of action could be established against the union.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the second named defendant dismissed; costs awarded to second named defendant with a stay.

Orders

  • Proceedings against Amicus the Union dismissed.
  • Second named defendant awarded costs against the plaintiff, with a stay unless fresh proceedings are instituted.