Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
IECA 88 ECLI:IE:CA:2015:88 KI-generiert

Court of Appeal allows appeal striking out summary summons for defective special endorsement of claim form.

Geschäftsnummer IECA 88
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Irland (IE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellants' appeal against the striking out of a summary summons. The lower court had struck out the document due to a defective special endorsement of claim, ruling it inconsistent with a prior decision. The appellate court found the endorsement complied with court rules and was not defective, reversing the lower court's order.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Rules of Court; special endorsement of claim: A special endorsement of claim on a summary summons must conform to the requirements of the Rules of Court and is not defective if it meets those standards.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
special endorsement of claim summary summons defective pleading striking out Rules of Court summary judgment procedural defect summarisches Konkursverfahren

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Rules of the Supreme Court

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
Allied Irish Banks plc v Eileen Pierce
KI-generiert
IECA 66
Court of Appeal allowed bank's appeal, dismissing defendants' summary judgment defence due to lack of credible evidence.
IESC 67
Supreme Court quashes summary judgment allowing defense of agency status for undisclosed principal.
IEHC 233
High Court grants summary judgment for plaintiff and strikes out defendant's document inspection application.
IEHC 668
Court grants liberty for summary judgment but stays execution pending defendant's counterclaim.
IEHC 243
High Court dismisses defendant's summary judgment application, allowing bank to recover outstanding mortgage debt.

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

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Neutral Citation Number: [2015] IECA 88

Kelly J.

Hogan J

Mahon J.

No. 71/2014

Between

Allied Irish Banks plc

Appellants

and

Raymond Cullinane and Joan Cullinane

Respondents

Judgment of Mr. Justice Kelly delivered on the 22nd day of April 2015.

Introduction

1. This is an appeal from an order of Binchy J. dated the 24th November, 2014. On that occasion the judge heard an application for

summary judgment which had been transferred to his list by the Master of the High Court as it was a contested case.

2. The judge heard the application on the same day as he dealt with the case of Allied Irish Banks plc v. Eileen Pierce in respect of

which judgments have just been delivered.

The pleadings

3. The endorsement of claim in this case is precisely the same in format as that which was in issue in Allied Irish Banks plc v. Pierce.

The same firm of solicitors are on record for the plaintiff in both cases.

4. The same objection was taken as to the form of the special endorsement of claim in this case as was done in Pierce’s case.

5. The judge, in his ruling, made it clear that he felt that he had to be consistent with what he had held in Pierce’s case and

accordingly he struck out both the motion and the summons in this case.

The appeal

6. The appellants appealed the entirety of the decision of Binchy J. In its written submissions, the plaintiff bank made it clear that it

was not going to proceed with the appeal in respect of the striking out of the motion for judgment, but would limit itself to that part

of the order that struck out the summons. That is the way in which the appeal proceeded.

7. The appeal in this case was heard concurrently with that in Pierce’s case. The point taken in respect of the special endorsement of

claim on the summary summons in this case is precisely the same as that which was taken in Pierce’s case.

8. In my view this case, insofar as the endorsement of claim on the summons concerned, is on all fours with Pierce’s case and is

governed by the result in that case.

Disposal

9. For precisely the same reasons as applied in Pierce’s case this appeal must be allowed. The special endorsement of claim conforms

to what is required under the rules of court and is not defective.