Fahy v Pullen
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1968 |
| Date | 01 January 1968 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
(S.C.)
Fahy
and
Pullen
Personal injuries -Pain stated to be in right arm - Evidence given of pain also in left arm - Objection by defendant -Discharge of jury - Evidence wrongly excluded -Costs of adjournment.
The plaintiff suffered personal injuries in a motor car accident. Negligence was not in issue and the only question for determination were her injuries and damages. In reply to a request for particulars of injuries such particulars were given which inter alia included a complaint of pain in the...
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
3 cases
-
O'Driscoll v Irish Shell and B.P. Ltd and Another
...additional injury as soon as he has formed that intention. (P. W. v. Córas Iompair ÉireannIR [1967] I.R. 137, and Fahy v. PullenDLTR 102 I.L.T.R. 81 considered. 2. The High Court order should have directed the plaintiff to pay to the defendants "the costs of the day." Fahy v. PullenDLTR 1......
-
HKR Middle East Architects Engineering LLC and Jeremiah Ryan v Barry English
...he will have to amend the underlying pleading.” 15 Important guidance was given by Lavery J. in the Supreme Court in Fahy v. Pullen (1968) 102 I.L.T.R. 81 as to the principles to be applied. In his judgment, Lavery J. said:- “The principles may be stated thus:- 1. Pleadings and particulars ......
-
Wolfe v Wolfe
...674 BELL V PEDERSON 1995 3 IR 511 RSC O.28 r9 AER RIANTA INTERNATIONAL 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 ASCHERB......