Kett v Shannon
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Henchy J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1987 |
| Neutral Citation | [1986] IESC 2 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 01 January 1987 |
[1986] IESC 2
Henchy J.
Griffin J.
Hederman J.
THE SUPREME COURT
Synopsis:
AGENCY
Agent
Authority - Conferment - Ostensible authority - Whether principal represented that agent had authority to act - Whether motor vehicle driven by first defendant with consent of owner - Second defendant being proprietor of garage - First defendant's car being repaired by second defendant - Temporary loan of Renault car made to first defendant by second defendant - Return of Renault car demanded by second defendant - Renault car returned by first defendant at time when second defendant absent - Repair of first defendant's car not completed - Mechanic employed by second defendant allowing first defendant to take Mini car in substitution for Renault car - Plaintiff injured as result of first defendant's negligence when driving second defendant's Mini car - No representation made by second defendant to effect that mechanic had authority to permit substitution of Mini car - Held that there was no evidence that, at the time when the plaintiff was injured, the first defendant was driving the Mini car with the consent of the second defendant - Road Traffic Act, 1961, s.118 - (137/85 - Supreme Court - 21/3/86) - [1987] ILRM 364
|Kett v. Shannon|
Citations:
ARMAGAS LTD V MUNDOGAS SA 1985 3 AER 795, 1986 AC 717, 1986 2 WLR 1063
FREEMAN & LOCKYER V BUCKHURST PARK PROPERTIES LTD 1964 2 QB 480
Judgment of Henchy J. delivered the 21st March 1986
The defendant Michael English ("the vendor") owns a garage. In 1979 he sold a secondhand Fiat motor car to a man called Richard Shannon ("the purchaser"). The car proved to be mechanically defective, so the vendor took it back to his garage to have it repaired, leaving a Renault motor car with the purchaser as a temporary replacement until the Fiat was put right. The purchaser had the use of the Renault for a few days and was then told to bring it back, as it had by then been sold by the vendor to someone else.
The purchaser called to the garage with the Renault. The vendor was not there. In fact the only person he found there was a Mr. Toomey, a mechanic ("the mechanic"). He enquired of him if the Fiat was ready. He was told that it would be ready that evening. The purchaser said that he needed a car immediately. To oblige him, the mechanic let him have the loan of a Mini motor car which was standing in the garage. The purchaser drove off in the Mini.
That was on a Friday. On the following Sunday the purchaser, driving the Mini, negligently collided with the plaintiff as she was walking on the public road and she suffered very severe injuries. The accident was entirely due to the purchaser's negligence. She brought a claim for damages in the High Court against both the purchaser and the vendor - against the purchaser as the driver and against the vendor on the footing that the purchaser was driving as his servant or agent.
The plaintiff's claim against the purchaser has been settled for £42,500, but alas his driving of the Mini was not covered by insurance. The question in this case is whether she is confined to recovering damages under the Motor Insurance Bureau scheme or whether she can recover against the vendor's insurers.
The plaintiff got a trial, as a separate issue before a judge and jury in the High Court, of the question whether at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allied Pharmaceutical Distributors Ltd v Walsh
...1902 2 CH D 404 PARTNERSHIP ACT 1890 S11 KIRKINRILLOCH EQUITABLE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD V LIVINGSTONE & ORS 1972 SLT 154 KETT V SHANNON 1987 ILRM 364 ARMAGAS LTD V MUNDOGAS SA 1985 3 AER 795 MERCANTILE CREDIT CO LTD V GARROD 1962 3 AER 1103 RAPP V LATHAM 1819 2 B & ALD 795 1 Judgment of ......
-
Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd v Arabic Computer Systems
...Irish law for establishing apparent or ostensible authority. Both sides referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kett v. Shannon [1987] ILRM 364 (“ Kett”) and agreed that it is the leading authority on the law on apparent or ostensible authority in this jurisdiction. In his judgment......
-
Healy v Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd
...[11] (i) Introduction. [12] IV. Points of Fact Arising [26] V. Claims Now Made [28] VI. Ostensible Authority [29] (i) Kett v. Shannon [1987] ILRM 364 [30] VII. Estoppel [48] (i) Overview. [48] VIII. Certain Torts Contended For [59] (i) Deceit. [59] IX. Breach of Contract [64] X. Promontoria......
-
Dooley v Clancy Project Management Ltd Trading as Clancy Construction
...responsible party in respect of his concerns. It was submitted, with reference to the Supreme Court decision in Kett v. Shannon & Anor. [1986] IESC 2, that Mr. Walsh had neither actual, nor ostensible authority to enter into a contract binding the Second Defendant. It was submitted that Mr.......