O'Neill v Ryan
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | Supreme Court |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1993 |
Date | 01 January 1993 |
- Rule in Foss v. Harbottle - European Community - Alleged breach of competition rules - Former shareholder allegedly suffering damage by reason of reduction in share value - Whether rule in Foss v. Harbottle applicable - Whether shareholder able to bring a personal claim against a party causing damage to a company - Whether EC law provides shareholder with cause of action -EEC Treaty, Arts. 85, 86. Practice - Action -Application to strike out - Whether reasonable cause of action disclosed - Whether claim clearly unsustainable - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, O. 19, r. 28.
The plaintiff claimed damages and other relief for breach of contract and wrongful dismissal against the first and second named defendants. The plaintiff also made claims against the last four named defendants singly, collectively, and collectively with the first named defendant for alleged breaches of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community. The last four named defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action as against them on the ground that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The essence of the plaintiff's claim was that the alleged conduct of the last four named defendants caused damage to the second named defendant and thereby to the plaintiff by reducing the value of his shareholding in the second named defendant. The last four named defendants submitted that the rule in Foss v. HarbottleDLRM applied. Lynch J. dismissed the plaintiff's action against the last four named defendants (see [1990] ILRM 140) and the plaintiff appealed. By the time the appeal was heard the plaintiff was no longer a shareholder in the second named defendant. Held by the Supreme Court (O'Flaherty and Blayney JJ.; Finlay C.J., Egan and Denham JJ. concurring) in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the High Court, 1, a court will exercise its jurisdiction to strike out a plaintiff's action where it is established by satisfactory...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Landers v Garda Síochána Complaints Board
...MACKMAN 1983 2 AC 237 BARRY V BUCKLEY 1981 IR 306 SUN FAT CHAN V OSSEOUS LTD 1992 1 IR 425 K (D) V K (A) 1993 ILRM 710 O'NEILL V RYAN 1993 ILRM 557 PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT 1974 MCCORMACK, STATE V CURRAN 1987 ILRM 225 H V DPP 1994 1 IR 589 GARDA SIOCHANA (COMPLAINTS) ACT 1986 S7(5) S......
-
Superwood Holdings Plc v Ireland
...2000 NI CHD 477 KAVANAGH v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON & ORS 2002 3 IR 97 BARRY v BUCKLEY 1981 IR 306 1981/9/1485 O'NEILL v RYAN & ORS 1993 ILRM 557 1993/5/1227 LAC MINERALS LTD v CHEVRON MINERAL CORP OF IRELAND & ORS 1995 1 ILRM 161 1994/11/3344 SUPERMACS (IRL) LTD & MCDONAGH v KATESAN ......
-
Mastertrade (Exports) Ltd and Others v Phelan and anor
...ALLIED IRISH COAL SUPPLIES V POWELL DUFFRYN INTERNATIONAL FUELS 1998 2 IR 521 MCCABE V HARDING INVESTMENTS 1984 ILRM 105 O'NEILL V RYAN 1993 ILRM 557 BARRY V BUCKLEY 1981 IR 306 TASSAN DIN V BANCO AMBROSANO 1991 1 IR 570 MURPHY V DONOGHUE 1996 1 IR 123 LAC MINERALS V CHEVRON MINERAL COR......
-
P. O'D v A. O'D
...Consist Rep. 310. N. (C) v. N (R) [1995] 1 Fam. L.J. 14. Olympia Productions Ltd. v. Mackintosh [1992] I.L.R.M. 204. O'Neill v. Ryan [1993] I.L.R.M. 557. Sullivan v. Sullivan 2 Addams 299. Wilson v. Wilson (1848) 1 H.L.C. 538. Family law - Judicial separation - Ancillary relief - Nature of ......
-
The position of the 'quasi-partnership' type private company in irish law
...legitimate expectations without the need of recourse to contract. This matter is considered below. 34 (1843) 2 Hare 461 (Ch.D.). 35[1993] I.L.R.M. 557 122 [4:1 majority decision. Therefore, proceedings could not be instituted save with the leave of the majority shareholders of the company. ......