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.
Early trial of an action inappropriate when the pleadings had not closed
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses to grant the plaintiff's application for an early trial of his action, in which he claims that refurbishment works carried out by the first defendant to his property were grossly defective, on the grounds that: (a) the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the order under the particular Rule of the Superior Court as it was not an interlocutory application; and (b) the pleadings had not closed in the case as a defence had not been filed.
Application by the plaintiff for an early trial of his action - action arose in circumstances of alleged defects in refurbishment works carried out by the first defendant on his property - proceedings against the second to fourteenth defendants were dismissed in a separate motion - Order 50, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - section 16 of the Mediation Act 2017 - whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the application when a similar application had been made to another judge - whether the court had jurisdiction to direct an early trial under Order 50, Rule 2 - whether it was appropriate to direct an early hearing when the pleadings had not closed - application refused
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.
