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 the plaintiff's application to strike out the defense of the second and third-named defendants in a case concerning the supply of edgings for the manufacture of laminated worktops, on the grounds that the defense presented by the defendants was not frivolous or vexatious and did disclose a reasonable answer to the plaintiff's claim; and the court did not find a culpable failure to comply with the discovery order that would justify striking out the defense
- Strike out application - Discovery order - Breach of duty - Negligent misstatement - Misrepresentation - Fitness for purpose - Order 19 Rule 28 - Order 31 Rule 21 - Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) - Amended Statement of Claim - Amended Defence - Inherent jurisdiction - Affidavit of discovery - Further and better discovery - Specification meeting - Edgings for worktops - Contributory negligence - Mitigation of losses
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