Dalton v Minister for Finance

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C.J.
• Judgment Date: 22 February 1989
• Neutral Citation: 1989 WJSC-SC 56
• Docket Number: [S.C. Nos. 311 & 420 of 1986]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 22 February 1989

DALTON v. MIN FINANCE

BETWEEN

INA DALTON

Plaintiff/

Respondent

and

THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE

Defendant/

Appellant

1989 WJSC-SC 56

Finlay C.J.

Griffin J.

Hederman J.

311/86 & 420/88

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Time limit

Extension - Supreme Court - Appeal - Evidence - Further evidence - Jury trial - Personal injuries - Plaintiff awarded damages - Appeal lodged by defendant - Cross-appeal sought by plaintiff after nearly two years - Alleged deterioration in plaintiff's condition after trial - Plaintiff's claim that amount awarded for future pain and suffering insufficient - Plaintiff's application for leave to adduce further evidence at hearing of defendant's appeal - On 16/9/82 the plaintiff was injured in a motor accident for which the defendant accepted responsibility - The trial of the plaintiff's action in the High Court was confined to an assessment by a jury of the plaintiff's loss - On 21/10/86 the plaintiff recovered judgment for #55,980 damages against the defendant - The jury awarded the plaintiff #22,000 damages in respect of her future pain and suffering - The defendant served notice of an appeal to the Supreme Court within 21 days of the perfection of the order of the High Court - During the Autumn of 1988 the plaintiff complained of a deterioration in her condition, which was confirmed by a surgeon who examined her at that time - The plaintiff wished to serve notice of a cross- appeal in relation to the inadequacy of the sum awarded by the jury for the plaintiff's future pain and suffering - The plaintiff applied to the Supreme Court for an order extending the period of 21 days specified in order 58, r. 3(4), for service of notice of an appeal to the Supreme Court - In addition, the plaintiff applied, pursuant to order 58, r. 8, for leave to adduce further evidence at the hearing of the defendant's appeal - Held, in dismissing the applications, that the ordinary principles applicable to an extension of the period allowed for serving notice of an appeal to the Supreme Court required the applicant to establish (a) that he had formed the intention to so appeal within the period limited by the Rules of Court for service of notice of an appeal, (b) that the failure to service notice of appeal within that period was due to a mistake and (c) that the applicant had an arguable case to support an appeal: ~Clonmel Foods Ltd. v. Eire continental Trading Co. Ltd.~ [1955] I.R. 170 applied - Held that the applicant had not formed such intention within the said period and that she had not shown that her failure to serve notice of appeal within the permitted period was due to a mistake - Held that an assessment of damages by a jury, or by a judge, was made on the basis of finality and by taking into account, in relation to a plaintiff's personal injuries, the possibilities of improvement or disimprovemnt of the plaintiff's physical condition in the future - Held, accordingly, that the plaintiff had not shown an arguable case in support of her application for the said extension of time - Held that evidence of matters occurring after the date of the award of damages to the plaintiff in the High Court was irrelevant to the hearing of an appeal from a decision of the High Court based on evidence adduced before that court not later than that date - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 58, rr. 3, 8 - (311 & 420/88 - Supreme Court - 22/2/89) [1989] ILRM 519 [1989] IR 269

|Dalton v. Minister for Finance|

PRACTICE

Appeal

Evidence - Further evidence - Appeal to Supreme Court - Negligence - Personal injuries - Damages awarded by jury - Appeal by defendant - Deterioration in plaintiffs" condition after date of judgment - Plaintiff's application for leave to adduce further evidence at hearing of defendant's appeal - ~See~ Practice, time limit - (311 & 420/88 - Supreme Court - 22/2/89) 1989 ILRM 519

|Dalton v. Minister for Finance|

SUPREME COURT

Appeal

Time limit - Extension - Evidence - Further evidence - Negligence - Personal injuries - Damages assessed by jury - Recovery of judgment for damages in High Court - Appeal lodged by defendant - Application by plaintiff for extension of period allowed for serving notice of appeal - Alleged deterioration of plaintiff's condition after date of judgment - Application made nearly two years after date of judgment - Plaintiff's application for leave to adduce further evidence at hearing of defendant's appeal - ~See~ Practice, time limit - (311 & 420/88 - Supreme Court - 22/2/89) [1989]ILRM 519 [1989] IR 269

|Dalton v. Minister for Finance|

Citations:

RSC O.58 r3(4)

RSC O.58 r8

CLONMEL FOODS LTD V EIRE CONTINENTAL TRADING CO 1955 IR

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 22nd day of February 1989 by FINLAY C.J.[NEM DISS]

2 This is an appeal brought by the Defendant against the assessment of damages awarded to the Plaintiff in the High Court, arising out of a motor accident. The Plaintiff now brings before this Court two separate motions. They are

3 (1) An application pursuant to Order 58, r. 3(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts enlarging the time for the service of a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court by the Plaintiff against so much of the Order made in the High Court on the 21st October 1986 as awarded to the Plaintiff the sum of £22,000 damages for pain and suffering in the future on the grounds that such award was inadequate.

4 (2) A motion for an Order pursuant to Order 58, r.8 of the Rules of the Superior Courts that on the hearing of the Defendant's appeal...