Baly v Barrett
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1988 |
| Date | 01 January 1988 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
Appeal -Plaintiff delayed serving writ in order to secure funding and because complexity of case such that statement of claim could not have been served in time - Whether good reason for extension of writ - Whether judge erred in extending writ -Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland), O. 6, r. 7 (2), O. 10, r. 4 (1).
In 1982 the plaintiffs were appointed as joint liquidators of DSQ Property Company Ltd., formerly De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. (DMCL) The latter was a subsidiary company of De Lorean Motor Company, a company incorporated in the United States of America. The defendants were originally four linked firms of accountants each practising under the same name one in Belfast, the second in Dublin, the third in London and the fourth in Detroit. Following the collapse of DMCL the House of Commons directed the Committee of Public Accounts to inquire into the financial assistance given to the company out of public funds. The Committee published its report in July, 1984. On 21 February, 1985, the plaintiffs issued a writ and the claim endorsed on it was for damages for breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation and breach of duty with regard to the accounts and other financial statements of DMCL. On the same day they obtained leave to serve concurrent writs on the three firms outside the jurisdiction. For several months after the issue of the writs there were discussions between the solicitors for the plaintiffgs and the solicitors for the defendants in order to identify correctly the defendant firms and partners. In October, 1985, the defendants' solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs' solicitors confirming an agreement to remove the Belfast firm from the writ and change the names of the partners in the London firm. The letter also asked for delivery of the writ so that the defendants' solicitors might accept service. The writ, however, was not served at that time. In February, 1986, the plaintiffs' solicitors applied for the renewal of the writ. The affidavit supporting the application referred to the complexity of the case and said that counsel were not then in a position to settle the statement of claim. An Order was made extending the writ until 20 February, 1987. On 10 February, 1987, the writ was sent to the defendants' solicitors who entered a conditional appearance and then applied to the court for an order setting aside the order extending the validity of the writ. In an affidavit sworn by the plaintiffs'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davidson v Moualem
...[2011] Q.B. 894; [2011] 2 W.L.R. 945; [2011] 2 All E.R. 536; [2010] EWCA Civ 1170, dicta of Rix, L.J. applied. (2) Baly v. Barrett, [1988] N.I. 368, applied. (3) Cecil v. Bayat, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 3086; [2011] EWCA Civ 135, applied. (4) Dagnell v. J.L. Freedman & Co., [1993] 1 W.L.R. 388; [199......
-
Eileen Chambers v Cyril Kenefick
...the High Court in O'Reilly v. Northern Telecom (Ireland) Limited (1999) 1 I.R. 214, and the House of Lords decision in Bailey v. Barret (1988) N.I. 368 in relation to the equivalent rule in the Northern Ireland Rules of 10Whilst some of the submissions focussed on the proper consideration t......
-
Dagnell and Another v J L Freedman & Company (A Firm) and Others
...validity of the writ until December 28. On December 8 a further extension had been granted until January 31, 1990. In Baly v BarrettDNI ([1988] NI 368, 416-417) Lord Brandon of Oakbrook had summarised the principles applicable to the exercise of the discretion conferred on the court by Orde......
-
Baldwin Martin Troy Day v Henry Merren
...extension for up to 12 months where service within the next four months is not possible. 5 [1988] 1 W.L.R. 389; [1988] 3 All E.R. 996. 6 [1988] N.I. 368. 7 [1993] 1 W.L.R. 388; [1993] 2 All ER ...