Woodman Matheson Company Ltd v Brennan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1941 |
| Date | 01 January 1941 |
(H.C.),
Woodman Matheson & Co. Ltd
and
Brennan
Sum paid to plaintiffs by their insurers - Plea of diminution raised in defence - Application to strike out - Practice.
A sum paid by his insurers to a party injured through alleged negligence should not be considered in diminution of damages in an action against the negligent party. A plea relative to that circumstance may be struck out.
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
2 cases
-
McFadden v Weir
...1 AER 555 1970 AC 1 GRAHAM v BAKER 1961 106 CLR 340 GUY v TRIZEC EQUITIES LTD 1979 99 DLR (3D) 243 WOODMAN MATHESON & CO LTD v BRENNAN 1941 75 ILTR 34 SINNOTT v QUINNSWORTH 1984 ILRM 523 MCENEANEY v MONAGHAN CO COUNCIL & COILLTE TEORANTA UNREP O'SULLIVAN 26.7.2001 2003/40/9627 N (M) v M (S)......
-
Doyle v Wicklow County Council
...8 T.L.R. 559. 30 [1964] A.C. 698. 31 [1962] N.I. 78. 32 [1962] N.I. 111, 122. 33 [1915] 2 I.R. 85. 34 (1897) 32 I.L.T.R. 32. 35 (1941) 75 I.L.T.R. 34. 36 (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 380. 37 (1782) 3 Doug. K.B. 61. 38 [1971] 2 Q.B. 230. 39 [1918] 1 I.R. 152. 40 (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 368. 41 [1915] 2 I.R. 85......