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 refuses application to strike out proceedings as against the first defendant, on the grounds that: (a) the pleadings disclosed at least an arguable case that a (rebuttable) presumption of undue influence arose where it was common case that at the date of the impugned transaction, the deceased was of advanced age and in poor health and the facts established that a substantial benefit was thereby conferred on the first defendant; and (b) this was not a "documents case" as the court could not determine whether the claim was bound to fail on the basis of the written agreement between family members.
Application to strike out proceedings for being frivolous, vexatious and/or abuse of process - high threshold - distinction between court's jurisdiction pursuant to Order 19 RSC and its inherent jurisdiction - proceedings challenging validity of transaction transferring family home - whether statement of claim disclosed cause of action - whether undue influence properly pleaded - whether oral evidence required - presumption of undue influence - whether claim could be saved by amendment to pleadings - whether case was a "documents case" - whether written agreement between family members meant claim was bound to fail
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 fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now