Caslin v Western Health Board

Tweet

 

FREE EXCERPT

SUPREME COURT

McGuinness

Hardiman

Macken

9/2005

BETWEEN

MARY CASLIN

V

WESTERN HEALTH BOARD

Abstract:

Practice & procedure - Notice of particulars - Appeal against ruling of High Court - Rules of the Superior Courts Order 19 r. 7

1 Judgment of the Court delivered on 8th day of July 2005 by McGuinness J.

2 The appeal is against an order of Mr Justice Butler dated the 20th December 2004 which required the plaintiff to deliver to the defendant replies to particulars at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the defendant’s notice of particulars of the statement of claim dated the 20th July 2004. The requests for particulars were as follows:

3 1. Please furnish full and detailed particulars of all clients of Mr Leo Caslin, Electrical Contractors, Strokestown, Co. Roscommon, between the years of 1960 and 1990 (Mr Leo Caslin being the father of the deceased, the plaintiff being the widow of the deceased).

4 2. Please furnish full and detailed particulars of all locations where the deceased worked for a period from 1960 to 1990.

5 Mr Duff on behalf of the plaintiff appellant submits that these particulars are not in fact particulars but are in the nature of interrogatories and that the plaintiff

6 should not be required in any case to give these particulars as being something added to her case and which was not pleaded by her.

7 In regard to particulars, Order 19 Rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts states:

8 “A further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading, notice, or written proceeding requiring particulars, may in all cases be ordered, upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as may be just.”

9 It should be noted that this is “any matter stated in any pleading” that is involved. Firstly in regard to the matter of interrogatories, it is perfectly clear that these are not questions which would be properly brought by interrogatories, as they could not be formed in the form which is directed in the Rules of the Superior Courts in that they cannot be answered by either yes or no and in any case they cannot be formed correctly. Therefore they are not in the nature of interrogatories.

10 It is argued by Ms Scully on behalf of the defendant/respondent that...