Re Rutledge, Hanly v Finnerty
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1981 |
| Date | 01 January 1981 |
| Court | High Court |
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 solicitor refused to provide the particulars and claimed that it was settled practice that full particulars of pleas in probate matters are not required and that only the name of the person or persons alleged to have exercised undue influence are required to be particularised. For the plaintiffs it was submitted that Order 19, rule 5, of the Rules of 1962 applied to all actions in the High Court and that there is nothing in the rules of courts to exclude its application to probate matters. Held by Barrington J., in giving judgment for the plaintiffs: (1) that Order 19, r. 5 purports on its face to apply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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......