Perry v Stratham, Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court (Irish Free State) |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1928 |
| Date | 30 July 1928 |
Supreme Court.
Practice - Security for costs - Application to the Supreme Court - Respondent in an appeal to Supreme Court applying for order - Appellant resident in England - Jurisdiction of Supreme Court - "Special circumstances"entitling a respondent to an order - Rules of the Supreme Court (Ir.),1905, Or. LVIII, r. 15.
Motion for security for costs.
The plaintiff, having failed in the action which he had brought for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him though the negligence of the defendant company, served notice of appeal to the Supreme Court under sect. 96 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, applying for a new trial.
The defendant company thereupon applied to the Supreme Court for an order that the plaintiff give security for the costs of his appeal.
The motion was grounded on an affidavit made by the defendant company's solicitor, which stated the facts as follows:—
"This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of the negligence of the defendants.
The action was tried before Mr. Justice Sullivan, President of the High Court, and a jury, and on the 3rd July, 1928, judgment was given in the said action for the defendants.
Prior to the trial of the said action the plaintiff, on application being made to him to give security for the costs thereof, gave security to the extent of £100.
The plaintiff has, by notice dated 20th July, 1928, appealed against the verdict and judgment entered for the defendants in said action. On 24th day of July, 1928, my firm served notice on the plaintiff's solicitor requiring security for the costs of the said appeal to be given within twenty-four hours, but no security has yet been given or offered.
The plaintiff is a commercial traveller, ordinarily resident in London, and has no property in this country which would be available to satisfy the defendants' costs of the said appeal in the event of it being decided in their favour."
An unsuccessful plaintiff in an action tried in the High Court for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him through the negligence of the defendants served notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, applying for a new trial.
The defendants thereupon applied to the Supreme Court for an order requiring the plaintiff to give security for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Framus Ltd v CRH Plc
...IRELAND FINANCE LTD 1992 2 IR 57 RSC O.29 COMPANIES ACT 1908 S278 SEE CO LTD V PUBLIC LIGHTING SERVICES 1987 ILRM 255 PERRY V STRATHAM 1928 IR 580 FANNON V AN BORD PLEANALA 1992 2 IR 380 1 Murray, J. delivered on the 22nd day of April, 2 The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in these p......
-
West Donegal Land League Ltd v Udaras Na Gaeltachta
...15/5/2006)[2006] IESC 29, [2007] 1 ILRM 1 West Donegal Land League Ltd v Údarás naGaeltachta COMPANIES ACT 1963 S390 PERRY v STRATHAM LTD 1928 IR 580 FALLON v BORD PLEANALA 1992 2 IR 380 MALAHIDE COMMUNITY COUNCIL LTD v FINGAL CO COUNCIL 1997 3 IR 383 HOUSTON v UDARAS NA GAELTACHTA & ORS......
-
Irish Press Plc v Warburg Pincus Company International Ltd
...& ANOR V BRODRENE GRAM A/S UNREP COSTELLO 21.7.94 1994/8/2243 BEAUCROSS LTD V KENNEDY UNREP MORRIS 18.10.95 1995/15/3854 PERRY V STRAITHAM 1928 IR 580 Synopsis: Practice & Procedure S.390 Companies Act 1963; security for costs; whether funds available to meet costs if payable Held: Applica......
-
Coolbrook Developments Ltd v Lington Development Ltd
...that part of the judgment of Kingsmill Moore J. in the case which referred to the earlier dicta of Fitzgibbon J. in Perry v. Stratham [1928] I.R. 580 ('Perry'). There, Fitzgibbon J stated: ' It must be borne in mind that security is not intended either as an indemnity against all costs whic......