Jack O'Toole Ltd v MacEoin Kelly Associates
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1987 |
| Date | 01 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | [1984 No. 6051P] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
(H.C., S.C.)
Jack O'Toole Ltd
and
MacEoin Kelly Associates
Limited company - Application by one defendant for security for costs in pending action - Plaintiff company unable to meet any order for costs - Whether plaintiff's impecunious state caused by wrong the subject matter of claim - Onus of proof on plaintiff - Standard of proof - Prima facie case -Discharge of onus - Whether bald statement sufficient - Supreme Court - Jurisdiction -Review of High Court discretion - Whether Supreme Court jurisdiction limited - Companies Act, 1963 (No. 33), s. 390.
The plaintiff, a building company formed for the purpose of contracting with the second defendant to build a large number of houses, commenced proceedings for damages for breach of contract against both the first defendant, the firm of architects appointed by the second defendant under the contract, and 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
56 cases
-
Framus Ltd v CRH Plc
...& VAN VEEN V STICHTING PENSIOENFONDS 1995 1 ECR 4705 COMPANIES ACT 1963 S390 RSC O. 99 r37(13) JACK O'TOOLE LTD V MACEOIN KELLY ASSOCIATES 1986 IR 277 THALLE V SOARES 1957 IR 182 LISMORE HOMES LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V BANK OF IRELAND FINANCE LTD 1992 2 IR 57 RSC O.29 COMPANIES ACT 1908 S2......
-
Campus and Stadium Ireland Ltd v Dublin Waterworld Ltd
...which would justify the refusal of orders for security for costs. As Finlay C.J. stated in O'Toole Limited v. MacEoin Kelly & Associates [1986] IR 277, at p.283: 74 "It is clear that there is no presumption, either in favour of the making of an order for security for costs or against it, bu......
-
Lismore Homes Ltd ((in Receivership)) v Bank of Ireland Finance Ltd
...V BOGOFF 1962 IR 180 COMPANIES ACT 1963 S390 SEE CO LTD V PUBLIC LIGHTING SERVICES 1987 ILRM 255 JACK O'TOOLE LTD V MACEOIN KELLY LTD 1987 ILRM 269 PEARSON V NAYDLER 1977 1 WLR 899 BULA LTD V TARA MINES LTD (NO 3) 1987 IR 494 COMHLUCHT PAIPEAR RIOMHAIREACHTA TEO V UDARAS NA GAELTACHTA ......
-
Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd (No. 3)
...LTD V BOGOFF 1962 IR 180, 97 ILTR 12 SEE LTD V PUBLIC LIGHTING SERVICES LTD 1987 ILRM 255 JACK O'TOOLE LTD V MACEOIN KELLY ASSOCIATES 1987 ILRM 269 PARKINSON V TRIPLAN LTD 1973 QBD 609 PEARSON V NAYDLER 1977 1 WLR 899, 1977 3 AER 531 Synopsis: PRACTICE Costs Security - Company - Insolv......
Get Started for Free