High Court Judgement
Ireland currently has a limited form of class action. It is the “actio popularis”. It is not like the US form of class action; it is not of direct benefit to individual members of the public. They get the benefit when they are in the class that benefits from the judgment. They do not simply lodge their claim for compensation, say. The Irish courts have accepted “actio popularis” claims in only one such proceedings; Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. v The Minister […]
With very little bother or trouble, the Oireachtas could and should remedy a real and persistent injustice for many injured persons. In Hu -v- Duleek Formwork Ltd & Anor [2013 IEHC 50, the High Court declined to make a declaration that the Plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of an insurance contract taken out by the insolvent Defendant company. The insurance company, Aviva, took issue with the Defendant’s failure to pay the excess of €1,000 which, as between the Defendant and […]
Our plaintiffs, Catherine Murphy and Finian McGrath failed in their challenge to defend democratic principles; Pearse Doherty has not.
DRI’s case is brought in its own name, but it is an action with implications for every citizen of Ireland, whether they know it or not.
On 5th May 2010 the High Court delivered its (unapproved) judgment. The Court confirmed its agreement to refer the EU law issue in the case to the European Court of Justice. The Court refused the State’s applications seeking denial of locus standi to the Plaintiff and/or seeking security for costs.
Readers will have seen reference HERE to a plea in a medical negligence case as to the meaning of a “consent” signed by the patient (who was having an operation to make her sterile). In Fitzpatrick v National Maternity Hospital  IEHC 62 the Defendant claimed that the mother (in labour) declined an episiotomy or a forceps-assisted birth (leading to the damage to the infant). The court rejected this plea, and rejected the evidence of the Defendant, intended to evidence it. […]
The court has decided (judgment delivered on 4th March 2010) that the 2nd and 5th defendants are NOT precluded from raising “public law issues”.
The Defendant driver admitted he did not see the Plaintiff pedestrian. The Plaintiff was an admirable witness, given that he was thrown into the air by the Defendant’s taxi. The Defendant gave evidence of the Plaintiff’s head hitting his windscreen. The judgment does not record the Plaintiff’s evidence in detail on the point, but if it was tendered it would probably have been in terms of the Defendant’s windscreen hitting him on the head.
The judgment delivered today by Ms. Justice Laffoy in the case of Shell E&P Ireland Limited -v- McGrath and Ors can be found below in pdf form.