Martin v Ford

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date30 October 1965
Date30 October 1965
Martin v. Ford.
WILLIAM MARTIN
Plaintiff
and
JOHN H. FORD
Defendant.

Practice - Pleadings - Particulars - Defence alleging contributory negligence of plaintiff - Plaintiff seeking further and better particulars of such contributory negligence - Rules of the Superior Courts (S. I., 1962, No. 72),Order 19, rule 6.

Motion on Notice.

The plaintiff, William Martin, in his statement of claim, alleged that he had been working as an employee of the defendant, John H. Ford, on a roof of the defendant's premises when he fell through the roof and was injured by reason of the defendant's negligence and breach of statutory duty. The defendant, in his defence, alleged that the plaintiff had been working in a negligent, dangerous and incompetent manner; that the plaintiff had failed to make proper use of the appliances and equipment supplied by the defendant and that there had been contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought, by motion on notice, an order of the Court directing the defendant to give further and better particulars of the matters alleged by him. At the hearing of the motion the plaintiff sought only particulars of the alleged contributory negligence.

In the absence of special circumstances, the Court will not order a defendant to give further and better particulars of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff which has been pleaded by the defendant.

So held by Murnaghan J.

Toppin v. Belfast CorporationIR [1909] 2 I. R. 181 followed, and Atkinson v.Stewart and Partners Ltd.DNI[1954] N. I. 146 considered.

Cur. adv. vult.

Murnaghan J. :—-

In Wylie's Judicature Acts it is stated, at p. 376, that"particulars of contributory negligence alleged in defence will not be ordered" and the case of Lynch v. Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Co.(1) is referred to. This report of that case does not support the statement I have quoted. Kenny J. is reported as having said in the course of his judgment:—"There may be cases in which the plaintiff is entitled to particulars, and very full particulars . . ." He went on to decide that particulars in that case were unnecessary to prevent surprise. Lynch's Case is reported in similar terms

to that in 1 N. I. J. R. in a note to the case of Savage v.Kirk(1). In neither report does it appear that the case came before the Court of Appeal. Mention is made in the same note of a case of Patterson v. Dublin Tram Co. in which the Court (Murphy and Kenny JJ.) refused to order that the defendants give particulars of the plaintiff's own negligence and contributory negligence.

The next reported case is, I think, Savage v. Kirk(1) in which in the course of his judgment, with which Madden J. concurred, Gibson J. is reported as having said:—"Where the nature of the case is such that the particulars of the negligence charged might be necessary to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Mahon v Celbridge Spinning Company Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 24 janvier 1967
    ...of motions for particulars of any other pleading. So held by the Supreme Court (Haugh, Walsh and FitzGerald JJ.). Martin v. FordIR [1965] I.R. 42 overruled. Supreme Court. Mahon v. Celbridge Spinning Co. Ltd. WILLIAM MAHON and THE CELBRIDGE SPINNING CO. LTD (1). Practice - Pleadings - Contr......
  • People v Shaw
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 janvier 1982
    ...one. That test derives from certain dicta enunciated in some of the judgments of this Court in The People (Attorney General) v. O'Brien 1965I.R. 42 and it has been applied in a number of subsequent cases. It needs to be said, however, without in any way questioning the correctness of the ac......

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