McGuinness v Armstrong Patents
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1980 |
| Date | 31 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | [1975 No. 2057 P.] |
| Court | High Court |
(H.C.)
McGuinness
and
Armstrong Patents
Negligence -Added defendant - Computation of limitation period - Service of summons - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962 (S.I. No. 72), Or. 15, r.13 - Interpretation Act, 1937 (No. 38), s. 11 -Statute of Limitations, 1957 (No. 6), s. 11.
The plaintiff suffered personal injuries on the 21st June, 1972, when a motor car, in which she was a passenger, crashed after one of its wheels became detached from the vehicle. The plaintiff issued and served on two defendants a summons in which she claimed damages from them and alleged that her injuries had been caused by their negligence. The plaintiff was then informed that the accident had been caused by the failure of a part of the car which had been manufactured by the third...
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
29 cases
-
McCann v an Bord Pleanála
...month time limit had expired on the 6 July, 1995, and so the appeal had not been made in time. McGuinness v. Armstrong Patents Ltd.IR [1980] I.R. 289 applied. Monaghan Urban District Council v. Alf-a-Bet Promotions Ltd.DLRM [1980] ILRM 64 distinguished. 2. That by virtue of the Interpretati......
-
DPP v McCabe
...CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) (AMDT) ACT 1990 S3 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993 S2(ii) INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 11(h) MCGUINNESS v ARMSTRONG PATENTS LTD 1980 IR 289 CRIMINAL ASSETS BUREAU v MCS UNREP HIGH COURT KEARNS 16.11.2001 2001/4/912 TAX CONSOLIDATION ACT 1997 933(1)(c) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 P......
-
Walsh and Others v Garda Síochana Complaints Board
...ACT 1986 S4(2)(A) GARDA SIOCHANA (COMPLAINTS) ACT 1986 S4(3)(A) INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 S11(H) MCGUINNESS v ARMSTRONG PATENTS LTD 1980 IR 289 FREENEY v BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL 1982 ILRM 29 MCCANN v BORD PLEANALA 1997 1 IR 264 GARDA SIOCHANA (COMPLAINTS) ACT 1986 S4(3)(iv) GARDA SIOCH......
-
Poole v O'Sullivan
...O'SULLIVAN DEFENDANT Citations: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S11(2)(b) MCGUINNESS V ARMSTRONG PATENTS LTD 1980 IR 289 PRITAM KAUR V S RUSSELL & SONS LTD 1973 1 QB 336 MUMFORD V HITCHCOCKS 1863 14 CB NS 361 HODGSON V ARMSTRONG 1967 1 AER 307 HUGHES V GRIFFITHS 186......
Get Started for Free