Re Rutledge, Hanly v Finnerty
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1981 |
| Date | 01 January 1981 |
(H.C.)
In re Rutledge
Hanly
and
Finnerty
Probate action -Undue influence - Application to have will admitted to probate - Claim that will procured by undue influence - Whether full particulars of undue influence required - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962 (S.I. No. 72), Or. 19, r. 5, Or.111.
In a probate action the plaintiffs brought a motion for an order directed against the defendant requiring him to deliver particulars of a plea of undue influence made in the defence. The defendant's...
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
10 cases
-
Smith v McCarthy
...fraud to be pleaded with particularity’. The rationale for this requirement was thus explained by Barrington J. in Healy v. Finnerty [1981] I.L.R.M. 198, 202: ‘Because of the seriousness of the plea counsel will not lightly put his name to a pleading containing a plea of undue influence so ......
-
Keaney v Sullivan and Others
...In the course of her judgment as set out above, the learned trial judge referred to the judgment of Barrington J. in Hanly v. Finnerty [1981] I.L.R.M. 198 [1981] I.L.R.M. 198, it seems to me to be of such relevance that it is worth reiterating that passage again. Barrington J. at page 202 s......
-
National Educational Welfare Board v Neil Ryan, I.T. Upgrade Ltd and Peter O'Grady
...- 14/12/2007) [2007] IEHC 428 National Educational Welfare Board v Ryan RSC O.19 r5(2) RUTLEDGE (DECEASED), IN RE; HANLY & ORS v FINNERTY 1981 ILRM 198 1981/10/1688 DELANY & MCGRATH CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 2ED 2005 PARA 5.38 BARCLAY v M'HUGH 1878 12 ILTR 176 BULA LTD (IN RE......
-
KBC Bank Ireland Plc v Hugh Corrigan
...in the context of plenary proceedings, that:- “…The rationale of this requirement was explained by Barrington J. in Hanly v. Finnerty [ [1981] I.L.R.M.198], in relation to a plea of undue influence as follows: ‘Undue influence is a plea similar to fraud and it appears to me that it would be......
Get Started for Free