O'Driscoll v Irish Shell and B.P. Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 05 April 1968 |
| Date | 05 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | [1966. No. 285P.] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
(S.C.)
O'Driscoll
and
Irish Shell and B.P. Ltd. and Another
Additional injury becoming apparent after particulars of injury furnished - Plaintiff's duty to give notice of additional injury - Costs - Form of order - Costs of the day - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962 Or. 99, r. 37 (33).
In his statement of claim the plaintiff pleaded that he had sustained "personal injuries" and, in reply to the defendants' request for particulars, he specified an injury to his left thumb which he said had been caused by a deep cut between that thumb and his...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
2 cases
-
Wolfe v Wolfe
...CPT V WALSH WESTERN INTERNATIONAL LTD 1997 2 ILRM 45 FAHY V PULLEN 102 ILTR 81 RSC O.99 r37(33) O'DRISCOLL V IRISH SHELL & BP LTD 1968 IR 215 KIELTHY V ASCON LTD 1970 IR 122 BOURGOINE V TAYLOR 1878 47 LJ CH 542 ASCHERBERG HOPWOOD & CREW LTD V CASA MUSICALE SONZOGNO DI PIERO OSTALI 1971 3 ......
-
Roy Brophy v The Minister for Defence, Ireland and Others
...in the initial claim at a later stage without being asked to do so as accepted in O”Driscoll v. Irish Shell and B.P. Limited and McStay [1968] I.R. 215. I see no reason in principle why the plaintiff should not be entitled to furnish further particulars in relation to the claim in order to ......