Gilmore v Windle
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1967 |
| Date | 29 July 1967 |
| Docket Number | [1962. No. 1395 P.] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
(S.C.)
Gilmore
and
Windle
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...
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
43 cases
-
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 ......
-
Blanchfield v Harnett
...were litigated in other Courts a practice wholly condemned by the Supreme Court in the case ofThe People (Attorney General) -v- McGlynn [1967] IR 323 where at page 239 the following was said by O'Dalaigh C.J.: "The nature of a criminal trial by jury is that once is starts, it continues righ......
-
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 ......
Get Started for Free