Hurl v Lupari & Anor [2017] NIQB 23 (1 February 2017)

Hurl v Lupari & Anor [2017] NIQB 23 (1 February 2017)

The application for committal was dismissed because the notice of motion failed to set out with sufficient particularity the alleged breaches, a defect not cured by the supporting affidavit. Even if the procedural defect were overlooked, the defendant was not vicariously liable for the acts of his Turkish lawyer, who acted outside his authority, and the plaintiff failed to prove to the requisite standard that the defendant breached the injunction.

Citation
[2017] NIQB 23
Parties
Plaintiff: Colm Hurl; First Defendant: Emmanuel Lupari; Second Defendant (trustee in Bankruptcy of Emmanuel Lupari): James B Kennedy
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
01 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Civil Contempt / Judgment on Application for Committal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Procedural Requirements for Contempt, Vicarious Liability for Contempt, Bankruptcy and Share Ownership
Civil Procedure Insolvency Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Procedural Requirements for Contempt Vicarious Liability for Contempt Bankruptcy and Share Ownership

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colm Hurl

Plaintiff

Emmanuel Lupari

First Defendant

James B Kennedy

Second Defendant (trustee in Bankruptcy of Emmanuel Lupari)

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Civil Contempt / Judgment on Application for Committal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached an injunction by acts of his Turkish lawyer
  2. 2 Whether the committal application was fatally flawed for lack of particularity
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for acts of his lawyer

Ratio Decidendi

The application for committal was dismissed because the notice of motion failed to set out with sufficient particularity the alleged breaches, a defect not cured by the supporting affidavit. Even if the procedural defect were overlooked, the defendant was not vicariously liable for the acts of his Turkish lawyer, who acted outside his authority, and the plaintiff failed to prove to the requisite standard that the defendant breached the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for committal dismissed
  • Court to hear counsel on costs