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 strikes out medical negligence proceedings against a second- and third-named defendant on the grounds that the proceedings are bound to fail, finding that: a) it was an abuse of process for the plaintiff to have joined the second and third defendants as co-defendants to the proceedings in circumstances where the plaintiff himself makes no case as against those defendants and has no evidence to ground his claim as against them; and b) it would fly in the face of logic to allow a plaintiff to continue a case against defendants in respect of whom the plaintiff himself has made no allegations of negligence.
Practice and procedure – application to strike out plaintiff's claim as an abuse of process and due to inordinate and inexcusable delay – O. 25 and/or O. 34 and/or O. 35 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Statute of Limitations Act 1957 – O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – whether the proceedings are bound to fail – whether it was an abuse of process for the plaintiff to have joined the second and third defendants as co-defendants to the proceedings in circumstances where the plaintiff himself makes no case as against those defendants and has no evidence to ground his claim as against them – it would fly in the face of logic to allow a plaintiff to continue a case against a defendant or defendants in respect of whom the plaintiff himself has made no allegations of negligence – pleadings disclose no cause of action at all as regards the second and third defendants – plaintiff’s claim against the second and third defendants dismissed.
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.