Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
IEHC 474 ECLI:IE:HC:2008:474 KI-generiert

High Court allows plaintiff to plead limitation statute provisions in reply to counterclaim.

Geschäftsnummer IEHC 474
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Irland (IE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The High Court permitted the plaintiff to plead specific sections of the Statute of Limitations 1957 in his reply to a counterclaim. Mr. Croke, a former employee of Waterford Crystal, argued these provisions were necessary to address time-bar issues arising from his long employment history. The court ruled that the procedural mechanism was valid, allowing the plaintiff to raise these statutory defenses despite the complexity of the case history.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

s. 44 and s. 71(1)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957; A plaintiff is entitled to plead limitation provisions in a reply to a counterclaim to assert statutory bars on the defendant's claim.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Statute of Limitations 1957 reply pleading counterclaim defense time bar limitation High Court procedure employment dispute procedural fairness

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
s. 44 of the Statute of Limitations 1957
Justice Birmingham delivered on the.i;Z 9 day of April, 2008 Issue before the Court 1(1) The issue before the Court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to plead by way of reply the provisions of s. 44 and s.
s. 71(1)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957
44 and s. 71(1)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

[2008] IEHC 474

THE HIGH COURT

[2001 No. 6543P]

BETWEEN

WALTER CROKE

PLAINTIFF

AND

WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED

AND

IRISH PENSIONS TRUST LIMITED

DEFENDANTS

-di,

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Birmingham delivered on the.i;Z 9 day of April, 2008 Issue before the Court 1(1) The issue before the Court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to plead by way of reply the provisions of s. 44 and s. 71(1)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957.

The Nature and History of the Proceedings

2(1) The present proceedings have a long, complex and it must be said tangled history to which it is necessary to refer in order to put the matter now before the Court in context. 2(2) The plaintiff in the proceedings, Mr. Walter Croke, is a former employee of the first named defendant, Waterford Crystal Limited (Waterford Crystal). He was employed by Waterford Crystal between 1965 and 1992. In the period before he ceased to be employed by Waterford Crystal he was working as a gas blower.