An examiner is not required to provide commercially sensitive information to bona fide potential investor. In re Ladbrokes (Irl) Ltd IEHC 381 (High Court, Cregan J, July 17th, 2015) The High Court refuses to order the examiner of two leading betting companies to provide commercially sensitive information to a bona fide potential investor, on the basis that the decision not to reveal same was a commercial judgment that was not utterly unreasonable and absurd.
– Conor O’Higgins BL
An unduly lenient sentence was imposed on man who fired a shotgun through a letterbox and set fire to house with child inside. DPP v Murphy IECA 143 (Court of Appeal, Sheehan J, June 12th, 2015) The Court of Appeal, on application by the Director of Public Prosecution, grants review of sentence of nine years' imprisonment with the final five years suspended for a man who pleaded guilty to offences including arson (setting fire to a house with young woman and child inside), possession of a firearm (and discharging it through letterbox into the home of an associate) and possession of a knife, finding that the sentence was unduly lenient.
– Ciarán Joyce BL
Losses arising from UK spread-betting contracts could not be enforced under Irish law Sporting Index Ltd v O'Shea IEHC 407 (High Court, Mac Eochaidh J, June 15th, 2015) The High Court, on appeal from the master of the High Court, refuses to deem enforceable a UK order in respect of losses arising from the defendant's online spread-betting account in the sum of €118,000, on the grounds that Irish law prohibited the enforcement of betting contracts as they were contrary to public policy.
– Ian Fitzharris BL
A victim of nightclub assault was unable to prove that the defendant was his assailant. Kennedy v Faherty IEHC 409 (High Court, Peart J, June 30th, 2015) The High Court dismisses a personal injuries claim by the victim of a night club assault, who suffered serious facial injuries and psychological sequelae, on the grounds that the plaintiff could not establish on the balance of probabilities that it was the defendant who had struck him.
– Shane Kiely BL
Damages are awarded to a woman who developed an infection as a result of wrongly prescribed antibiotics. Lalor v National Maternity Hospital IEHC 423 (High Court, Cross J, July 3rd, 2015) The High Court grants €139,434.87 to a plaintiff, to include €125,000 for general damages for physical and psychiatric injuries, where she had developed an infection arising from wrongly prescribed antibiotics where the defendant hospital failed to detect a swab that had been left in her vagina following a difficult birth, resulting in a fear and distrust of the medical profession.
– Mark Tottenham BL
No negligence is established against a doctor who carried out a hysterectomy resulting in nerve damage. McNicholas v Herman IEHC 435 (High Court, Barr J, July 7th, 2015) The High Court dismisses a claim against a doctor for alleged negligence in carrying out an abdominal hysterectomy resulting in damage to nerve and numbness and pain to the leg, on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to establish: a), whether her pre-operative care was deficient in that she had not been specifically advised to lose weight before the operation; or b), whether the defendant's use of a self-retraining retractor to hold back the abdominal wall during the operation was a departure from good medical practice.
– Mark Tottenham
The mother of child born in a surrogacy arrangement is not entitled to equivalent maternity or adoptive benefit. G v Department of Social Protection IEHC 419 (High Court, O'Malley J, July 7th, 2015) The High Court, on appeal from the Circuit Court, upholds a decision of the Equality Tribunal that the mother of a child born under a surrogacy arrangement in a foreign jurisdiction was not entitled to a payment equivalent to maternity or adoptive benefit, on the grounds that the relevant legislation did not provide for surrogacy arrangements and the Equality Tribunal had no power to grant redress.
– Ian Fitzharris
Sufficient warnings were given to a jury regarding contact with non-jury members and internet research. DPP v McCarthy IECA 150 (Court of Appeal, Mahon J, July 13th, 2015) The Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal from the Circuit Court and affirms a conviction for possession of diamorphine, finding that: a), the trial judge had satisfactorily enforced an order for disclosure of relevant Garda phone records; b), warnings given by the trial judge in relation to contact or discussions with non-jury members, or accessing information relating to the trial or the appellant from other sources, were sufficient; and c), the fact that identification evidence was central to the case was fully recognised by the judge and was fully and comprehensively addressed by him in his charge to the jury.
– Ciarán Joyce
The full text of the above judgments is available oncourts.ie. These reports were compiled by Stare Decisis Hibernia: StareDecisisHibernia.com