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 rules that a service provider's counterclaim against a technology giant can proceed, although the court denied the service provider's request to amend the counterclaim to include additional claims. The court found that the existing counterclaim was not vexatious or bound to fail, and thus did not warrant being struck out. However, the proposed amendments were rejected as they contained unnecessary narrative and failed to disclose any additional stateable cause of action. Additionally, the court noted that the Circuit Court would not have jurisdiction over the monetary claim introduced by the proposed amendment.
Service provider - technology giant - counterclaim - amendment - High Court - vexatious claim - stateable cause of action - monetary jurisdiction - Circuit Court - Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) - Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 - abuse of process - contractual relations - settlement agreement - confidentiality - unlawful interference - contractual obligations - recruitment fee - Consultancy Master Services Agreement - Purchase Orders - Contractor. Agreement, tortious activity, damages, inherent jurisdiction, O.19 r.28, Rules of the Superior Courts (Order 19) 2023, S.I. No. 456 of 2023.
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 e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now