Cudars v McAleer & Rushe Ltd & Ors [2014] NIMaster 4 (14 March 2014)

Cudars v McAleer & Rushe Ltd & Ors [2014] NIMaster 4 (14 March 2014)

The plaintiff failed to provide any good reason for the delay in serving the first writ or for the extension of its validity, and failed to discharge the burden of proving it would be equitable to disapply the limitation period. Therefore, both applications by the plaintiff were dismissed.

Citation
[2014] NIMaster 4
Parties
Plaintiff: Ilmar Cudars; First Defendant: McAleer & Rushe Limited; Second Defendant: Martin Meenagh; Third Defendant: Martin Meenagh Formworks Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
14 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Interlocutory Applications on Writ Validity and Limitation Period
Outcome
Plaintiff's applications dismissed; first defendant's application dismissed as misconceived; costs awarded to first defendant.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service of Writ, Disapplication of Limitation Period, Court's Discretion Under Limitation Statutes
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Extension of Time for Service of Writ Disapplication of Limitation Period Court's Discretion Under Limitation Statutes

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ilmar Cudars

Plaintiff

McAleer & Rushe Limited

First Defendant

Martin Meenagh

Second Defendant

Martin Meenagh Formworks Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Interlocutory Applications on Writ Validity and Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has shown good reason to extend the validity of the first writ under Order 6 Rule 7
  2. 2 Whether the limitation period should be disapplied under Article 50 of the Limitation Order (NI) 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to provide any good reason for the delay in serving the first writ or for the extension of its validity, and failed to discharge the burden of proving it would be equitable to disapply the limitation period. Therefore, both applications by the plaintiff were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's applications dismissed; first defendant's application dismissed as misconceived; costs awarded to first defendant.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application to extend validity of first writ dismissed.
  • Plaintiff's application to disapply limitation period dismissed.