High Court refuses application brought by the second and third defendants seeking to set aside the plaintiff's notice of trial whereby the plaintiff sought the proceedings in which it is alleged that he was sexually abused by the first defendant be tried before a jury, on the grounds that: (a) there is a causal connection between the causes of action; and (b) the plaintiff has a right to trial with a jury against both defendants because of the manner in which the legislation has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
Application brought by the second and third defendants seeking to set aside the plaintiff's notice of trial whereby the plaintiff sought the trial of proceedings before a jury - proceedings arose in circumstances whereby the plaintiff alleged that they were sexually abused by the first defendant in 1975 - Order 36, rule 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - Section 1(3) of the Courts Act, 1988 - whether or not the case against each of the second and third defendants falls into the exception that personal injuries cases shall be tried before a judge rather than jury found within s. 1(3)(b) of the Courts Act 1988 - whether the claims in negligence against the second and third respondent do or do not amount to “an action where the damages claimed consist of damages for another cause of action in respect of the same act or omission” - Supreme Court and Court of Appeal had previously interpreted s. 1(3)(b) of the Courts Act 1988 to include similar claims - application dismissed - Court calls on the Oireachtas to consider the provision.