Practice & Procedure
Please read that again..
Reference has been made in this blog to the necessity of having a lawyer in the conclusion of complex contracts. The same can be said of the necessity of having a lawyer on the interpretation of contracts. In Analog Devices v Zurich Insurance the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff had a factory in Limerick engaged in; the manufacture, research and design of high performance linear mix signal and digital […]
Self-Representation
But it would be hard to beat the title of the book – “Represent Yourself in Court and Win!”, for an unhelpful and irritating phrase.
Taxis
It will not apply to debates on the legitimacy of tight time limits on applications for Judicial Review under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, because there are no such debates.
What’s the news?
Every judge can now have his/her “followers” and indeed, may use Twitter to sample opinion with a view to staying onside any any particularly thorny legal question.
Quarries
Quarries, no less than any other development, are subject to control by application to the High Court
Dud Motor Cars
The consumer has a choice of suing the Finance Company and the motor dealer who “sold” the car to the consumer or just the Finance Company.
A New Year Resolution
The justification for this notion (that the State should be favoured) is the supposed need for certainty in public administration. This is a peculiar idea in this context; Prohibition, Mandamus, Quo Warranto or Certiorari do not present opportunity for an appeal. They challenge the legal base of the administrative action, not the correctness of the decision. A judge is not asked in these applications to substitute his/her view for that of the Executive. The judge is asked to check a legal error.
Health Care Settings?
The Hospital argued that the pleadings in the action alleged a defect with, or in, a forceps used in the Hospital. It argued that a claim that a forceps was defective was not a medical negligence claim (“…the correctness or otherwise of the surgical procedure being carried out”), but was a defective product claim.
Homework
Matters were in each case made more difficult by the decision of the court of appeal in concluding that, while the judgments were deficient, it was possible to discover what the reasons for the judgment were in each case. Consequently, the appellants although aggrieved at the absence of reasons in the original judgments did not win on appeal and lost more money on legal costs.
Negligent? So what?
The logic in the title to this post is lurking in every action alleging negligence, but it is a formidable retort in a medical negligence action.