Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants plaintiff's application to join architectural firm as a defendant to its proceedings despite strenuous opposition from the second-named defendant and owner of the firm to the effect that the plaintiff's claim will become statute-barred, on the grounds that there are issues of fact and opinion surrounding the plaintiff's knowledge of the contents of certain insurance indemnity documentation covering the proposed defendant which must remain issues for the trial of the action.
Application to add defendant to existing proceedings - Order 15 rule 13 RSC - plaintiff's application resisted by second named defendant, who argues that the plaintiff's claim will be statute-barred and that, as a result, his company should not be joined to the proceedings - building-related works carried out on plaintiff's property - professional indemnity insurance certificate fails to name company itself and instead only refers to second named defendant - cause of action does not arise until loss or damage has been sustained - plaintiff's case at its height - issues of fact and opinion - court not in a position to determine issue of conscionability - issue for trial - costs of interlocutory application - Order 99 rule 4A - costs of application granted to plaintiff with a stay on execution until proceedings determined.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now