Redmond v Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C.J.,McCarthy J.,EGAN J.
• Judgment Date: 18 July 1992
• Neutral Citation: 1991 WJSC-SC 2377
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 79 of 1991]
• Date: 18 July 1992

REDMOND v. IRELAND

BETWEEN

PHILIP REDMOND

Plaintiff/

Respondent

and

IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants/

Applicants

1991 WJSC-SC 2377

Finlay C.J.

McCarthy J.

Egan J.

79/91

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

ORDER

Execution

Stay - Application - High Court - Judgment - Negligence of defendant - Damages awarded to plaintiff - Defendant's appeal - Defendant's application for stay made initially in appellate court - Principles applicable - (79/91 - Supreme Court - 18/7/91)

|Redmond v. Ireland|

PRACTICE

Order

Execution - Stay - High Court - Judgment - Negligence of defendant - Damages awarded to plaintiff - Defendant's appeal - Defendant's application for stay made initially in appellate court - Principles applicable - (79/91 - Supreme Court - 18/7/91)

|Redmond v. Ireland|

Citations:

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 18th day of July 1991by FINLAY C.J.

2 This is an application on behalf of the Defendants for a stay upon an order made in the High Court on the 17th January 1991 awarding to the Plaintiff a sum of £49,969 damages and costs in respect of injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in January 1984 in the course of his employment with the Defendants. Pursuantto an order of this Court made on the 22nd March 1991 for extending the time for the service of a notice of appeal, the Defendants appealed against that order, both in relation to liability and in relation to the assessment of damages by a notice of appeal served on the 25th March1991.

3 The Defendants did not at the conclusion of the hearing, or at any other time, apply in the High Court for a stay on the order made by it on the 17th January 1991.

4 When this application for a stay came before this Court on the 10th May 1991, the members of the Court agreed that having regard to the prima facie view which it was possible to form concerning the appeal in regard to the issue of liability, and having regard to the evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff on the hearing of this motion as to the hardship imposed on him, certainly by the non-payment of any sum on foot of the award of damages, that there should be an immediatepayment of £15,000 on account of the damages and that upon that being made that a stay on the balance should be made, until further order of this Court when the matter could be considered and a reserved judgment given.

5 I am satisfied that the considerations with regard to the granting of a stay under circumstances such as these are accurately set out in the judgments of McCarthy J. and Egan J. which I have read and which are about to be delivered.

6 I am also satisfied that the failure of a party to apply to the High Court for a stay, whilst not fatal to an application for a stay in this Court, must be a significant factor in the various matters which must be taken into consideration.

7 Notwithstanding that factor in this case, I have come to the conclusion that, approaching the matter as it should, in my vew, be approached, namely, by taking a prima facie view of the appeal on the issue of liability that the position is that the Defendant's appeal onliability is in substance an appeal against the acceptance by the learned trial Judge of the truth of the account of the accident given by the Plaintiff and his witnesses which the Defendants say was false and fabricated. In those circumstances, whilst technically it is possible that such a finding of primary fact could be held by this Court to be so unsupported by evidence as to require to be set aside, that is an unlikely event.

8 With regard to the issue of damages, a specific point with regard to actuarial calculations has been made in the appeal and again on a prima facie basis might have to be considered by this Court.

9 In those circumstances, where the immediate hardship on the Plaintiff would appear to have been relieved by the payment on account of£15,000 of the damages, and where there are some grounds for apprehension on the part of the Defendants that if they paid a substantially greater amount and were to succeed in having the damages significantly reduced that it wouldbe difficult to recover the over-payment, I conclude that the stay should continue until the hearing of the appeal, upon terms that, of course, any award over and above £15,000 which may then be confirmed to the Plaintiff should be paid to him with interest at the statutory rate from the date of the High Court order.

10 jud55

11 Judgment of McCarthy J.delivered the 17th day of July, 1991.

12 The Plaintiff was injured in the employment of the Defendants on the 7th January 1984; his action for damages was determined on the 17th January 1991 when he was awarded £49,969 for damages and costs. No application for a stay was made in the High Court. The order of the High Court was perfected on the 30th January 1991. On the 22nd March this Court made an order enlarging the...