Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
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, in an application to dismiss and/or strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim: (1) strikes out the plaintiff’s claims of defamation and negligent misstatement, on the grounds that they are bound to fail; and (2) stays the plaintiff’s claim in relation to malicious prosecution until after the plaintiff exhausts all avenues open to him to enlarge the time to appeal and prosecute any such appeal if he is allowed to do so
Application to dismiss or strike out the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the statement of claim: discloses no reasonable cause of action, is frivolous and/or vexatious, is unsustainable and bound to fail – plaintiff arrested and charged with criminal damage – allegations in the statement of claim - a bag and tools were inspected - plaintiff using tools on the clamp chains - court should consider the pleadings and ignore affidavit evidence filed – malicious prosecution - right to clamp and exhibited the authorisation of the entity which clamped - well settled that in order to be actionable, a claim for malicious prosecution must involve the institution of unsuccessful criminal proceedings by a defendant maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause as a result of which the plaintiff has suffered damage – conviction not overturned - claim will fail if he proceeds without having the conviction overturned or set aside – stay the claim in relation to malicious prosecution until after he exhausts all avenues open to him to enlarge the time to appeal and prosecute any such appeal if he is allowed to do so – defamation - defence to a defamation action where a statement is made at trial by a party, witness or legal representative in proceedings presided over by a judge - bound to fail in relation to his claim for defamation against the defendants for statements made at his prosecution in the District Court – deficient pleadings - negligent misstatement – plaintiff would have to show that the plaintiff himself who claims that he is the injured party relied on the statements of the first named defendant Garda - will only succeed where it relates to economic loss – not medical expenses and fines - bound to fail – allegations of defamation and negligent misstatement struck out.
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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.