Mannix v Pluck

CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date01 January 1975
Docket Number[1967. No. 1428 P.]
Date01 January 1975

Delay in prosecuting civil action for damages - Suggestion that delay a reflection of plaintiff's lack of belief in merits of his claim - Suggestion incorporated in judge's charge to jury - Whether trial unsatisfactory.

In June, 1967, the plaintiff brought an action in the High Court in which he claimed damages for injuries suffered by him as a result of a collision in 1965 between his motor cycle and the defendant's motor lorry. Each party alleged that the other had been negligent and had caused the collision. In April, 1970, the plaintiff served notice of the trial of the action. During the trial the plaintiff was cross-examined about the reasons for the delay in bringing the action to trial; the plaintiff did not give an explanation for the delay and it was then suggested to him that he never had a belief in the merits of his claim. In the course of his charge to the jury the trial judge said: —"However counsel for the defence submitted to you that the only conclusion that should be drawn from this delay was that the plaintiff and perhaps his solicitor did not think very much of his chances. That is the submission that is made to you. You consider it and give it whatever...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • McGrath v Athlone Institute of Technology
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • June 14, 2011
    ...Labour Court decision would in practice improve right to seek injunction - Byrne v Shannon Foynes Port Co [2008] 1 IR 814; Mannix v Pluck [1975] IR 169; R v Cox and Railton (1884) 14 QBD 153; Mutual Insurance Company v Schaefer (1877) 94 US 467; Doherty v South Dublin County Council (No 2) ......
  • Jack O'Toole Ltd v MacEoin Kelly Associates
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1987
    ...[1977] 3 All E.R. 531. The State (Browne) v. Feran [1967] I.R. 147. In bonis Morelli; Vella v. Morelli [1968] I.R. 11. Mannix v. Pluck [1975] I.R. 169. Practice - Costs - Security - Application by one defendant for security for costs in pending action - Plaintiff company unable to meet any ......
  • Bailey v Commissioner of an Garda Síochána
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • July 26, 2017
    ...a different recommendation or a DPP had directed differently?’ 78 This was the very point which was addressed by the Supreme Court in Mannix v. Pluck [1975] I.R. 169. In that case the plaintiff had sued the defendant lorry driver for negligence as a result of personal injuries sustained in ......
  • Paul Doyle v Catherine Banville
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • May 1, 2012
    ...- Whether permissible for party to give evidence of strength or weakness of case - Hay v O'Grady [1992] 1 IR 210 and Mannix v Pluck [1975] IR 169 approved - Doran v Cosgrove (Unrep, SC, 12/11/1999) considered - Courts Act 1988 (No 14), s 1 - Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (No 31), s ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT