Artt v W. G.T. Greer
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1954 |
| Date | 01 January 1954 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
(Q.B.D., N.I.),
Artt
and
W. G. & T. Greer
Contributory negligence - Reduction of damages to amount within County Court jurisdiction - R.S.C. Or. 65, r. 61 (42) -Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland), 1948 (12 13 Geo. 6, c. 23), s. 2.
A plaintiff whose damages are reduced by reason of contributory negligence to 100 or less is not, in the absence of special circumstances, entitled to more than half costs having regard to the provisions of Or. 65, r. 61 (42). Kelly v. Stockport CorporationUNK [1949] 1 All E.R. 893 doubted and not followed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd v Ng Chan Teng
...reason for a transfer of the assessment of damages hearing from the District Court to the High Court: at [38]. Artt v W G & T Greer [1954] NI 112 (refd) C & A Odlin Timber and Hardware Company Limited v Gray [1961] NZLR 411 (refd) Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugian s/o Rangasamy [2004] 3 SLR (R) 19......
-
Ng Chan Teng v Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd
...look to s 20 of the Subordinate Courts Act read with s 2 of the same to cap the amount that is eventually ordered. In Artt v WG & T Greer [1954] NI 112, Lord MacDermott reviewed Kelly and disagreed with it. Lord MacDermott held at p 117 … Tucker L.J. (as he then was) says [in Kelly]: “In th......
-
Ng Chan Teng v Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd
...look to s 20 of the Subordinate Courts Act read with s 2 of the same to cap the amount that is eventually ordered. In Artt v WG & T Greer [1954] NI 112, Lord MacDermott reviewed Kelly and disagreed with it. Lord MacDermott held at p 117 … Tucker L.J. (as he then was) says [in Kelly]: “In th......
-
Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd v Ng Chan Teng
...then filed a further appeal to the High Court. The Judge applied the Northern Irish High Court decision of Artt v W G & T Greer [1954] NI 112 (“Artt”) and allowed the appeal, holding that the maximum sum awardable at 70% liability ought to be the District Court limit of $250,000. His reason......