Tuohy v Courtney
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Flaherty J. |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 1994 |
| Neutral Citation | 1994 WJSC-SC 4178 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [1987 No. 3362P],338/345/92 |
| Date | 26 July 1994 |
1994 WJSC-SC 4178
THE SUPREME COURT
Finlay C.J.
O'Flaherty J.
Egan J.
Blayney J.
Denham J.
AND
AND
Citations:
HAY V O'GRADY 1992 1 IR 210
BEST V WELCOME FOUNDATION LTD 1993 3 IR 421
TUOHY V COURTNEY UNREP LYNCH 3.9.92 1992/13/4268
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S11
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S11(1)(a)
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S11(2)(a)
CAHILL V SUTTON 1980 IR 269
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S11(2)(b)
HEGARTY V O'LOUGHRAN 1990 1 IR 148
MORGAN V PARK DEVELOPMENTS LTD 1983 ILRM 156
O'DOMHNAILL V MERRICK 1984 IR 151
O'BRIEN V KEOGH 1972 IR 144
O'BRIEN V MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING CO LTD 1973 IR 334
MOYNIHAN V GREENSMITH 1977 IR 55
FOLEY V IRISH LAND COMMISSION 1952 IR 118, 1957 86 ILTR 44
AG V SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL TRUST LTD 94 ILTR 16
KELLY ON THE CONSTITUTION 3ED 1064
TOAL V DUIGNAN 1991 ILRM 140
COMMON LAW PROCEDURE (IRL) ACT 1853
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 S11(2)(c)
CARTLEDGE V E JOPELAN & SONS LTD 1963 AC 758
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1939 UK
CONSTITUTION ART 40
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 PART III
Synopsis:
CONSTITUTION
Personal rights
Litigation - Commencement - Period - Limitation - Oireachtas - Function - (338/92 - Supreme Court - 26/7/94) 1994 2 ILRM 503
|Tuohy v. Courtney|
CONSTITUTION
Statute
Validity - Litigation - Commencement - Period - Limitation - Causes of action - Breach of contract and tort - Plaintiff unaware of extent of loss until end of limitation period - Enactment omitting to provide extension of limitation period where plaintiff's knowledge incomplete - ~Locus standi~ of plaintiff - Function of Oireachtas to impose appropriate limitation periods - Statute of Limitations, 1957, s. 11 - (338/92 - Supreme Court - 26/7/94) 1994 2 ILRM 503
|Tuohy v. Courtney|
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
Limitations
Oireachtas - Function - Statute - Validity - Challenge - Causes of action - Breach of contract and tort - Plaintiff unaware of extent of loss until end of limitation period - Enactment omitting to provide extension of limitation period where plaintiff's knowledge incomplete - ~Locus standi~ of plaintiff - Function of Oireachtas to impose appropriate limitation periods - (338/92 - Supreme Court - 26/7/94) 1994 2 ILRM 503
|Tuohy v. Courtney|
PRACTICE
Appeal
Facts - Findings - Court - Function - Trial - Conflict of oral testimony - Decision of trial judge resolving conflict - Whether evidence to support decision - (338/92 - Supreme Court - 26/7/94) 1994 2 ILRM 503
|Tuohy v. Courtney|
PRACTICE
Parties
~Locus standi~ - Statute - Validity - Challenge - Causes of action - Breach of contract and tort - Plaintiff unaware of extent of loss until end of limitation period - Enactment omitting to provide extension of limitation period where plaintiff's knowledge incomplete - ~Locus standi~ of plaintiff - (338/92 - Supreme Court - 26/7/94) 1994 2 ILRM 503
|Tuohy v. Courtney|
SUPREME COURT
Appeal
Facts - Findings - Court - Function - Trial - Conflict of oral testimony - Decision of trial judge resolving conflict - Whether evidence to support decision - (338/92 - Supreme Court - 26/7/94) 1994 2 ILRM 503
|Tuohy v. Courtney|
Judgment of O'Flaherty J. delivered the26th day of July, 1994. [NEM DISS]
This judgment is concerned with the dismiss of the plaintiff's claim for damages for negligence brought against the third and fourth named defendants ("Moylans") who were the solicitors for the vendor in the transaction in question and who had supplied to the plaintiff information - inaccurate information according to him - as regards the title to the premises 8 Annabella Terrace, Mallow.
Without calling on counsel for Moylans, the Court intimated in the course of the hearing that the appeal of the plaintiff against Moylans should be dismissed.
I now set out the reasons why the appeal should be dismissed.
It is pertinent to reiterate the function of this Court in reviewing findings of fact made by a High Court judge. The relevant principles have been outlined by this Court in the recent decisions: Hay .v. O'Grady [1992] 1 IR 210 and Best .v. Welcome Foundation Limited [1993] 3 IR 421 at 482, 483. The jurisdiction of this Court in reviewing findings of primary fact made by a trial judge is confined to determining whether the findings made are supported by credible evidence.
It was pleaded on behalf of the plaintiff in the statement of claim delivered on his behalf that he had a long standing personal and professional relationship with the Moylans, father and son, that is Richard Moylan and John Moylan. It is clear that the firm had acted for him in recent ejectment proceedings, for example.
The plaintiff attended on Mr. John Moylan to ascertain the nature of the title to the premises. It was pleaded that Mr. Moylan informed the plaintiff that the title in question was freehold title subject to a ground rent but that he explained that the grounds upon which the house was built was owned by a third party but that the house itself would be the property of the plaintiff. Having been asked by the manager of the branch of Allied Irish Bank plc. at Mallow to ascertain details of the title it was pleaded, further, that the plaintiff visited Mr. Moylan's office again on the 15th September, 1978 and repeated his request for information concerning the title. That Mr. Moylan again informed the plaintiff that the title was freehold title subject to a ground rent of £40.00 per annum for 99 years from 1923. In giving the said advice and information to the plaintiff it was pleaded that Mr. Moylan was under a duty to exercise all due professional care, skill and diligence as well as having a fiduciary duty to represent accurately to the plaintiff the type of title which was the subject matter of the said sale particularly having regard to the trust and confidence which the plaintiff reposed in Mr. Moylan, which trust and confidence was well known to Mr. Moylan. Further, it was pleaded that Mr. Moylan was fully aware that the plaintiff was borrowing money from the A.I.B. for the purpose of completing the said purchase and was relying upon the information and advice which Mr. Moylan gave to the plaintiff.
The statement of claim went on to plead that in giving the said advice and information to the plaintiff Mr. Moylan was guilty of negligence and breach of duty in that the said title was not in fact a freehold title subject to a ground rent, but was on the contrary a leasehold interest only for a term of 99 years from the 1st October 1919 at a yearly rent of £42.50. In advising and informing the plaintiff as aforesaid, it was pleaded that Mr. Moylan negligently and in breach of duty omitted to make due and proper inquiries as to the nature of the said title or misunderstood the nature of the said title.
It is clear that there was a sharp conflict of evidence between the plaintiff and Mr. Moylan as to what was said at the two meetings.
The learned trial judge with characteristic lucidity summarised this aspect of the case as follows:
The plaintiff called into Moylans first either on the 14th or the 15th of September 1978 and spoke to Mr. John Moylan. He then called to his bank and spoke to the manager who sent him back to Mr. John Moylan to clarify as to whether the interest for sale was freehold or leasehold. The plaintiff called back to Mr. John Moylan and had a further conversation with him and then returned to his bank manager and the application form was filled in by the manager at paragraph 8 thereof as follows:-
"Freehold. Ground Rent £40 p.a. for 99 years from 1923"
These conversations between the plaintiff and Mr. John Moylan and the bank manager all took place either on the 15th of September 1978 the date of the loan application form or the first one of them may have taken place on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meagher v O'Leary
...rights of the applicant. There was proper proportionality in the provision between the conflicting rights involved. Tuohy v. CourtneyIR [1994] 3 I.R. 1 applied. Heaney v. IrelandIR [1996] 1 I.R. 580 and In re Information (Termination of Pregnancies) Bill, 1995IR [1995] 1 I.R. 1 considered. ......
-
TF v Ireland
...was so contrary to reason and fairness as to constitute an unjust attack on some person's constitutional rights. Tuohy v. CourtneyIR [1994] 3 I.R. 1 followed. 2. That it was because of its close association with the family that the institution of marriage received the pledge of the State to......
-
The Employment Equality Bill, 1996
...RENTED DWELLINGS) BILL 1981, IN RE 1983 IR 186 MATRIMONIAL HOME BILL 1993, IN RE 1994 1 IR 305 EQUAL STATUS BILL 1997 TUOHY V COURTNEY 1994 3 IR 1 CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) BILL 1975, IN RE 1977 IR 129 ELECTORAL (AMDT) BILL 1983, IN RE 1984 IR 268 ADOPTION (NO 2) BILL 1987, IN RE 198......
-
Information (Termination of Pregnancies) Bill, 1995
...CONSTITUTION ART 42 CONSTITUTION ART 43 CONSTITUTION ART 44 RYAN V AG 1965 IR 312 HEALY, STATE V DONOGHUE 1976 IR 326 TUOHY V COURTNEY 1994 2 ILRM 503 CONSTITUTION ART 26 REGULATION OF INFORMATION (SERVICES OUTSIDE THE STATE FOR TERMINATION OF PREGNANCIES) BILL 1995 S8(1) REGULATION OF INF......
-
Should Ireland prohibit the contemporaneous media reporting of juvenile trials?
...[1994] 3 IR 593 (Digest); [1994] 2 ILRM 420; [1994] 6 JIC 2902; 1998 WJSC-HC 7869 180 Cox v Ireland [1992] 2 I.R. 503; Courtney v Toughy [1994] 3 I.R. 1. Other cases which did not form a proportionality test but evaluated legislation to interpret the constitution include: Ryan v. The Attorn......
-
The C Case
...right to bodily integrity and the defendant's right to have his property protected against unjust attack, cf. Touhy v. Courtney [1994] 2 ILRM 503. I.e., one in accordance with the X case criteria. Cf The finding of the European Court of Justice in Case C-159/60 SPUC v. Grogan [1991] 3 CMLR ......
-
Tackling Bid Rigging in Public Procurement - Another Means of Cutting Public Expenditure during the Recession
...was recognised as an unenumerated right protected by Article 40.3.1, Bunreacht na hEireann , 1937 by the case of Tuohy v Courtney [1994] 2 ILRM 503. 110 Tuohy v Courtney [1994] 3 IR 1, p 47. 111 Ibid. 1&2 HJ2010:Layout 1 27/05/2010 17:02 Page 24 24 RICHARD KELLY granted this substantial ben......
-
TD v Minister for Education, Constitutional Culture, and Constitutional Dark Matter
...Chair or House to interpret Constitution’. 24 To take just some examples, Ryan v Attorney General [1965] IR 294 at 312; Tuohy v Courtney [1994] 3 IR 1; and Fleming v Ireland [2013] 2 I.R. 417. [2022] Irish Judicial Studies Journal Vol 6(3) 44 IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL The curvature of ......