Murrin v Sligo County Council and Another

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeFinnegan P.
Judgment Date05 December 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] IEHC 405
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number2003/6746P
Date05 December 2005

[2005] IEHC 405

THE HIGH COURT

2003/6746P
MURRIN v SLIGO CO COUNCIL & WASTE DISPOSAL SLIGO LTD
DAMIEN MURRIN
PLAINTIFF

AND

SLIGO COUNTY COUNCIL

AND

WASTE DISPOSAL SLIGO LIMITED
DEFENDANTS

SWEENEY v BUS ATHA CLIATH (DUBLIN BUS) & ORS 2004 1 IR 576

LAND v LAND 1945 P 405

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S118

MCCAULEY v MCDERMOT 1997 2 ILRM 486

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961

SHAW v SLOAN 1982 NI 393

REAMSBOTTOM v RAFFERTY 1991 1 IR 531

LAWLESS v BUS EIREANN 1994 1 IR 475

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Abuse of process

Issue estoppel - Notices of contribution and indemnity - Proceedings against co-defendantstruck out - Whether parties bound by determination of liability in earlier proceedings - McCauley v McDermot [1997]2 ILRM 487 followed - Finding made that no issue estoppel arose (2003/6746P - Finnegan P - 5/12/2005) [2005] IEHC 405

Murrin v Sligo County Council

Facts: the plaintiff was a passenger in a lorry owned by the second defendant and driven by a person whose claim for personal injuries was struck out in respect of the second named defendant in separate, prior, proceedings relating to the same crash. Notices of indemnity and contribution had been served in those proceedings as in the present action. The driver was found to be 60% and the first defendant 40% at fault in his personal injuries action. The second defendant claimed that the issue of liability as between itself and the first defendant had been determined in the earlier action. In short, issue estoppel was claimed.

Held by Finnegan P in holding that the issue of liability between the first and second defendants remained to be determined, that the withdrawal of a claim not leading to an adverse adjudication did not operate as an estoppel. Whilst the first and second defendant had been parties to earlier action brought by the driver, the issue between them on their respective defences and notices of indemnity and contribution had not been determined and remained to be dealt with. As the driver of the lorry was not the privy of the second defendant, the apportionment of liability in that action was not determinative of the apportionment between the defendants in the present action on the basis of issue estoppel.

Reporter: P.C.

Finnegan P.
1

In an action entitled The High Court 2002 No. 5955P between Paul Rooney, Plaintiff and Sligo County Council and Waste Disposal Sligo Limited the Plaintiff's claim was as follows. On the 12th September 2000 the Plaintiff an employee of the second named Defendant was driving a motor lorry the property of the second named Defendant when, it was alleged, the same went out of control skidded and struck a telegraph pole and as a result the Plaintiff sustained personal injury. He alleged inter alia negligence on the part of each Defendant. In relation to the first named Defendant it was alleged that the accident was caused by the dangerous condition of the road by reason of there being loose chippings thereon. In relation to the second named Defendant it was alleged that he had been provided with a dangerously defective motor lorry. In its defence the first named Defendant pleaded that the accident was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff in driving the motor lorry and/or was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the second named Defendant. In its defence the second named Defendants pleaded that the accident was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff and/or caused by the negligence of the first named Defendant. Each of the Defendants served a notice of Contribution and Indemnity. The action came on for hearing on the 25th April 2005. The Order made reads as follows û

"This action having been at hearing on the 21st, 22nd and 25th days of April 2005 and on this day in the presence of Counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for the first named Defendant

And on hearing Counsel for the Plaintiff on the 21st day of April 2005

It is ordered that the proceedings against the second named Defendant be struck out

On the application of Counsel for the first named Defendant it was ordered that the proceedings herein be reported by a shorthand writer

Whereupon and on reading the Plenary Summons and Pleadings herein and the documents adduced in evidence and upon hearing the oral evidence of the witnesses whose names are set forth in the Schedule hereto and on hearing said Counsel respectively

The Court doth

(a) find that the Defendant was negligent

(b) find that there was contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff

(c) apportion the degrees of fault

(i) to the Defendant: 40%

(ii)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Tom O'Driscoll v Seamus Dunne and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 11 February 2015
    ...determining an action but without proceeding to the merits will not constitute a final judgment. See Murrin v. Sligo County Council [2005] IEHC 405 where a plea of res judicata failed in circumstances where although the defendants had both been parties to an earlier action brought by the dr......

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