Gilmore v Windle
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 29 July 1967 |
Date | 29 July 1967 |
Docket Number | [1962. No. 1395 P.] |
Court | Supreme Court |
Defendant motorist claiming indemnity or contribution from seller of car for alleged breach of warranty - Application to issue and serve third-party notice - Whether application should be granted - Rules of the Superior Courts'1962, O. 16. rr. 1, 7, 8, 9 - Civil Liability Act, 1961, s. 27 - Civil Liability (Amendment) Act, 1964, s. 3.
The plaintiff was struck by the defendant's motor car and injured. The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant in the High Court and alleged that his injuries had been caused by the negligent driving of the defendant. The defendant claimed that the accident had been caused by the sudden and total failure of the brakes of her motor car and that when the car had been sold to her two days before the accident, the seller had represented to her that the car was in a sound mechanical condition. The defendant applied in the High Court for leave to issue and serve on the seller a third-party notice pursuant to s. 27 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, claiming an indemnity or contribution from the seller. The defendant's application was refused on the grounds that she had not conceded that she was a "wrongdoer" within the meaning of that section and that the terms of Order 16 of the Rules of the Superior Court did not enable the Court to grant the application. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court and, before the hearing of the appeal, s. 27 of the Act of 1961 was amended by the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act, 1964, so as to allow expressly a person...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Basinview Management Ltd and Others v Borg Developments and Others
...RSC O.16 r2 KSK ENTERPRISES LTD v BORD PLEANALA & ORS 1994 2 IR 128 1994 2 ILRM 1 1994/4/1176 RSC O.16 r2(2) RSC O.16 r4 GILMORE v WINDLE 1967 IR 323 BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF ST LAURENCES HOSPITAL v STAUNTON 1990 2 IR 31 1989 ILRM 877 1989/6/1838 MOLLOY v DUBLIN CORP & ORS 2001 4 IR 52 200......
-
Robins v Coleman
...ACT 1961 S27(1)(B) CONNOLLY v CASEY & MURPHY T/A CASEY & MURPHY SOLICITORS 2000 1 IR 345 2000 2 ILRM 226 2000/3/1120 GILMORE v WINDLE 1967 IR 323 BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF ST LAURENCES HOSPITAL v STAUNTON 1990 2 IR 31 MCELWAINE v HUGHES UNREP BARRON 30.4.1997 1998/25/9740 DILLON v MACGABHANN ......
-
Waldron v Herring and Others
...of knowledge of alleged cause of action - Board of Governors of St Laurence's Hospital v Staunton [1990] 2 IR 31 and Gilmore v Windle [1967] IR 323 applied - Staunton v Toyota (Ireland) Ltd (Unrep, Costello J, 15/4/1988); Buckley v Lynch [1978] IR 6; Neville v Margan Ltd [1988] IR 734; Molo......
-
Kenny v Howard
...she then was) said: 'The clear purpose of the subsection is to ensure that a multiplicity of actions is avoided; see Gilmore v. Windle [1967] I.R. 323. It is appropriate that third-party proceedings are dealt with as part of the main action. A multiplicity of actions is detrimental to the ......