Murphy v Hennessy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice McWilliam
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1985
• Neutral Citation: 1984 WJSC-HC 2555
• Date: 01 January 1985

1984 WJSC-HC 2555

THE HIGH COURT

Circuit Appeal

MURPHY v HENNESSY

PATRICK MURPHY

Plaintiff

and

SEAMUS HENNESSY

Defendant

Subject Headings:

PRACTICE: adjournment

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice McWilliamdelivered on the 6th day of April 1984.

2 On 6th November, 1982, the Plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Circuit Court claiming damages for negligence by the Defendant in connection with a traffic accident. His claim related only to damage to his car.

3 The Defendant, who suffered personal injuries, issued proceedings in the High Court claiming damages for negligence by the Plaintiff in connection with the same accident. The plenary summons was issued on 18th February, 1983.

4 Section 6 of the Courts Act, 1971, provides as follows:-

"Notwithstanding section 94 of the Act of 1924 or section 44 of the Succession Act, 1963, a civil action in the Circuit Court or a question of fact or an issue arising in the action or a question of fact arising in any proceedingsin the Circuit Court under the Succession Act, 1965, shall not be tried with a jury."

5 The Plaintiff's case came on for hearing in the Circuit Court before the Defendant's High Court action was heard. The Defendant then applied to have the Circuit Court proceedings stayed until the High Court action had been heard. The Circuit Court Judge acceded to this application and the Plaintiff has appealed from this decision.

6 On behalf of the Plaintiff reference has been made to a case of Conroy -v- Tullamore Motors in which it is thought that McMahon, J., held that a stay on such an application ought to be refused. I have not been furnished with any official record of thiscase.

7 The Defendant has relied on Rule 11 of Order 30 of the Circuit Court Rules. It is as follows:-

"The Judge may, if he thinks expedient in the interests of justice, postpone or adjourn a trial for such time, and upon such terms, as he shall think fit."

8 It is argued that this rule gives a Circuit Court Judge anabsolute discretion to adjourn proceedings if he should think fit and that, as a party has a statutory right to a jury in a negligence action and as it is reasonable that a party would wish to have a jury to decide the facts, the Circuit Court proceedings were properly stayed in the exercise of the Judge's discretion.

9 I was not referred to any statute and I assume that the statutory right alleged is such as is contained in section 94 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. This merely provided that nothing in the Act should prejudice the right of any party to any action in the High Court (with certain exceptions not relevant to these proceedings) to have questions of fact tried by a jury in such cases as he might theretofore of right have so required in the Supreme Court of...