Rubotham (an Infant) v M B Bakeries Ltd
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr. Justice Morris |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1993 |
Neutral Citation | 1992 WJSC-HC 2762 |
Docket Number | No. 8539P/1989 |
Court | High Court |
Date | 01 January 1993 |
BETWEEN
AND
1992 WJSC-HC 2762
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
PRACTICE
Pleadings
Amendment - Delay - Minor - Personal injuries - Damages - Action - Settlement - Compensation unpaid - Insolvency of party to settlement - Minor seeking to obtain payment from insurer of party to settlement - Amendment seeking rescission of settlement - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 28, r. 6 - (1989/8539 P - Morris J. - 2/7/92) - [1993] ILRM 219
|Rubotham v. M. & B. Bakeries Ltd.|
Citations:
RSC O.28 r6
RSC O.28 r1
Judgment of Mr. Justice Morris delivered the 2nd day of July 1992
This is an application brought by the Plaintiff under Order 28 Rule 6 of the Superior Court Rules seeking leave to amend his Statement of Claim in a comprehensive manner.
The circumstances in which the necessity to amend arises are as follows. The Plaintiff is now 14 years of age having been born on the 17th of May 1978. He sustained severe injuries when he suffered burning on the 17th of December 1980. He was in the first named Defendants' van when it went on fire. He instituted proceedings against the first named Defendant claiming that the fire in the van was occasioned by its negligence and it was alleged that there was a fault in the way in which the battery was fitted to the van. This action came on for hearing on the 15th of July 1986 when a settlement was reached, subject to the approval of the Court, for the sum of £150,000 and costs. The settlement was approved by the Court and by Consent an Order was made staying execution of the Order for a period of six months.
A Provisional Liquidator was appointed over the assets of the first named Defendant's Company by Order of the Court on the 4th of June 1987. The amount of the settlement was never paid.
The present action was instituted by way of Plenary Summons issued on the 18th of July 1989 against both the original Defendant, who is the first named Defendant in this action, and the Irish National Insurance Company Plc. and the Plaintiff claims a Declaration in his Plenary Summons that the Insurance Company who held cover on the first named Defendant's vehicle are obliged to discharge the damages by reason of a policy of insurance which they had issued covering the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Webb v Min for Finance
...2 IR 113 1995 2 ILRM 290 1995 9 2649 BELL v PEDERSON & SANDOZ RINGASKIDDY LTD 1996 1 ILRM 290 RUBOTHAM (INFANT) v M & B BAKERIES LTD 1993 ILRM 219 WORRI BANK & HANVIT LSP FINANCE LTD v KDB IRL UNREP CLARKE 17.5.2006 2006 IEHC 156 CROKE v WATERFORD CRYSTAL LTD 2005 2 IR 383 PRACTICE AND PR......
-
Habte v The Minister for Justice and Equality ; Habte v The Minister for Justice and Equality
...a new cause of action or ground for relief’, citing Wolfe v. Wolfe [2000] 1 I.L.R.M. 389, Rubotham v. M. & B. Bakeries Ltd. [1993] I.L.R.M. 219, Shell E. &P. Ireland Ltd. v. McGrath [2006] IEHC 99 [2006] 2 I.L.R.M. 28 In Rubotham, Morris J., as he then was, was confronted with an amendmen......
-
Wolfe v Wolfe
...LIMITED AND JOHN ATKINS AND COMPANY LIMITED RESPONDENTS Citations: RSC O.28 r1 RSC O.125 r1 RUBOTHAM (AN INFANT) V M & B BAKERIES LTD 1993 ILRM 219 DPP V CORBETT 1992 ILRM 674 BELL V PEDERSON 1995 3 IR 511 RSC O.28 r9 AER RIANTA INTERNATIONAL CPT V WALSH WESTERN INTERNATIONAL LTD 1997 2 IL......
-
Sherwin v an Bord Pleanála
...the proceedings, or requires the addition of new parties, is not a bar to allowing the amendment ([ Rubotham v. M. & B. Bakeries Ltd. [1993] I.L.R.M. 219], [ Shell E. & P. Ireland Ltd. v. McGrath [2006] IEHC 99 [2006] 2 I.L.R.M. 299]); (xiii). the fact that the amendment involves a new reli......