Collins v Doyle
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Finlay P. |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1982 |
| Neutral Citation | 1982 WJSC-HC 1849 |
| Docket Number | No 10163P/1980 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 08 February 1982 |
1982 WJSC-HC 1849
THE HIGH COURT
Judgment delivered on the 8th day of February, 1982by Finlay P.
This is an application by the Defendant for security for costs.
The Plaintiff's claim is for damages for personal injuries caused by the Defendant's breach of duty to him as an invites in the Defendant's premises The Defendant in his affidavit applying for security has established a prima facie defence in that he alleges that the accident complained of did not occur and that if the Plaintiff was injured that it resulted from a fracas in which the Plaintiff was crushed outside the Defendant's premises.
The Plaintiff in reply states that he is residing and has for some time resided outside the jurisdiction in England and that by reason of the injuries suffered by him in the accident complained of he has since that time been unable to earn and is accordingly unable to provide any security for costs. It is argued on his behalf that to make an order for security would be effectively to determine the issues arising in the case against the Plaintiff.
I have been referred to the following decisions which I haveconsidered.
Flynn .v. Eivers 86 I.L.T.R. (1952)
Heaney .v. Malocca 1958 I.R.
Peppard & Co. Ltd. .v. Bogoff 1962 I.R.
Cahane .v. Cahane 1968 I.R.
From these decisions the following principles of law appear toarise.
(1) Prima facie a Defendant establishing a prima facie defence to a claim made by a Plaintiff residing outside the jurisdiction has got a right to an order for security for costs.
(2) This is not absolute right and the Court must exercise a discretion based on the facts of each individual case.
(3) Poverty on the part of the Plaintiff making it impossible for him to comply with an order for security for costs is not even when prima facie established, of itself, automatically a reason for refusing the order.
(4) Amongst the matters to which a Court may have regard in exercising a discretion against ordering security is if a prima facie case has been made by the Plaintiff to the effect that his inability to give security flows from the wrong committed by the Defendant.
In this application the case made by the Plaintiff on his affidavit precisely is that his inability to give security for costs arises from an inability to earn caused by the Defendant's wrong.
Although I accept the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ditt v Drohne
... ... be extended to foreign residents - Proetta v Neil [1996] 1 IR 100 and Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland [1990] 2 QB 407 considered; Collins v Doyle [1982] 2 ILRM 495 and Maher v Phelan [1996] 1 IR 95 approved; Malone v Brown Thomas & Co. Ltd. [1995] 1 ILRM 369 considered - Rules ... ...
-
Pitt v Bolger
...ECR 1467 MAHER V PHELAN UNREP CARROLL 3.11.95 1996/6/1780 PROETTA V NEIL UNREP MURPHY 17.11.95 1995/21/5422 RSC O.29 r3 COLLINS V DOYLE 1982 ILRM 495 RASHAD FARAS 1984 1 ILRM 469 JURISDICTION OF COURTS & ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS (EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES) ACT 1988 TREATY OF ROME ART 7 BERKELEY......
-
Harberd v Cross Vetpharm
...AND CROSS VETPHARM GROUP LIMITED DEFENDANT Citations: RSC O.29 RSC O.29 r1 RSC O.29 r2 TREATY OF ROME 1957 RSC O.29 r3 COLLINS V DOYLE 1982 ILRM 495 FARES V WILEY 1994 2 IR 379 WALKER V ATKINSON 1895 1 IR 246 DENMAN V O'CALLAGHAN 1897 31 ILTR 141 HEANEY V MALOCCA 1958 IR 111 FLYNN V EIVE......
-
Seamus Smyth v O'Shea Fishing Company Ltd and Another
...the said party do furnish such security." 5 4. Following a review of the authorities, Finlay P. (as he then was) in Collins v. Doyle [1982] I.L.R.M 495 set out the following principles of law applicable to such applications, which remain the key principles applicable, as follows:- 6 2 "(1) ......
-
Security For Costs Revisited
...Petroleum v TFB, [2004] EWHC 1177 (Ch) and Ali Burak Dumrul v Standard Chartered Bank, [2010] EWHC 2625 (Comm). (13) Collins v Doyle, [1982] ILRM 495. (14) Goode Concrete v CRH plc, [2012] IEHC 116. This is especially the case where the contrary factual pleas are advanced by the disputants ......