Donnelly v Doyle [2005] NIQB 26 (18 March 2005)

Donnelly v Doyle [2005] NIQB 26 (18 March 2005)

The application to extend time is refused because the purported points of law are in reality findings of fact, there have already been two hearings on the merits resolved in favour of the plaintiffs, and the principles for extension of time do not support granting the application.

Citation
[2005] NIQB 26
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: Tony Donnelly (deceased) and Frances Donnelly; Defendant/appellant: Jimmy Doyle
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
18 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Extend Time for Lodging Requisition to State a Case
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Adverse Possession, Right of Way, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Property Law Extension of Time Adverse Possession Right of Way Appeal Procedure

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Donnelly (deceased) and Frances Donnelly

Plaintiffs/respondents

Jimmy Doyle

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Extend Time for Lodging Requisition to State a Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the time for lodging a requisition to state a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the points raised are points of law or findings of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The application to extend time is refused because the purported points of law are in reality findings of fact, there have already been two hearings on the merits resolved in favour of the plaintiffs, and the principles for extension of time do not support granting the application.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Refusal to extend time for lodging requisition to state a case