Millar v Peeples
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1995 |
| Date | 01 January 1995 |
- Separate trials - Issues of liability and damages - Claim for personal injuries - Trial of issue of liability before trial of issue of damages - Circumstances in which separate trial could be made - Whether just and convenient - Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland), 1980, O. 33, r. 3.
The plaintiff suffered severe injuries when he was hit by a car while crossing a road adjacent to his school to attend a fete at the school. On that day traffic was busy, and a line of stationary vehicles had built up behind a fire engine (one of the attractions at the fete) which was trying to turn right into the school from the road. The plaintiff sued the first defendant for negligent driving. He also sued the school's parent association as organiser of the fete and the North Eastern Education and Library Board (the board) for negligence in failing to take steps to protect children who might be at risk from traffic in the vicinity of the fete. The board sought the agreement of the plaintiff's solicitors to have the issue of liability tried separately from and in advance of that of damages. Following the plaintiffs refusal to agree the board brought an application under R.S.C. (N.I.), 1980, Ord. 33, r. 3, and the master made an order in their favour. On appeal, the judge reversed the master's decision on the ground, not argued before him or the master, that the medical evidence about the injuries might be able to assist the trial judge in the determination of liability. The board appealed. The plaintiff did not seek to support the judge's decision on the ground given but contended that it would be hard on the plaintiff to require him to give evidence twice and that if the trial was not split there would be a greater incentive on the defendants to settle. Held - The terms of Ord. 33, r. 3 permitted the court to order a split trial in a personal injuries action and, while the normal practice was that liability and damages should be tried together, the courts should be ready to order separate trials wherever it was just and convenient to do so. In weighing up what was just and convenient the court should balance the advantages or disadvantages to each party and take into account the public interest that unnecessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pco Manufacturing Ltd v Irish Medicines Board
...would be affirmed and the appeal dismissed. Citations IRISH MEDICINES ACT 1995 EEC DIR 65/65 EEC DIR 81/851 RSC O.39 r9 MILLAR V PEEPLES 1995 NI 6 MCCABE V IRELAND 1999 4 IR 151 IN THE MATTER OF COMET FOOD MACHINERY COMPANY 1999 1 IR 485 VELLA V MORELLI 1968 IR 11 Judgment of Mr Justice Fra......
-
Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Ltd v PNC Global Investment Servicing (Europe) Ltd (orse BNY Mellon Investment Servicing (International) Ltd)
...v Ireland [1999] 4 IR 151; McCann v Desmond [2010] IEHC 164, [2010] 4 IR 554; McDonald v Bord na gCon [1964] IR 350; Millar v Peeples [1995] NI 6; PJ Carroll & Co Ltd v Minister for Health and Children [2005] IESC 26, [2005] 1 IR 294; PJ Carroll & Co Ltd v Minister for Health (No 2) [20......
-
Weavering Macro Fixed Income Fund Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v PNC Global Investment Servicing (Europe) Ltd
...2) 2005 3 IR 457 CORK PLASTICS MANUFACTURING v INEOS COMPOUND UK LTD & ORS UNREP CLARKE 7.3.2008 2008/8/1638 2008 IEHC 93 MILLAR v PEEPLES 1995 NI 6 MCCANN v DESMOND 2010 4 IR 554 RSC O.63A r6(i)(B)(ix) CPR O.35.4(UK) IGOTE LTD v BADSEY LTD 2001 4 IR 511 CAMERATA PROPERTY INC v CREDIT SUISS......
-
Dingles Builders (NI) LTD v Most Rev Francis Gerard Brooks, Rev Matthew O'Hare, Rev John Kearney, Rev Aiden Hamill, Rev J Cushenan,Rev F Browne,Rev James Poland, M Gillen, M Chambers, Paul Digney
...the well known principles applied by this court to the review of such an exercise (as to which see, eg, our decision in Millar v Peeples [1995] NI 6) were not applicable. They also submitted that the judge had not given sufficient reasons for his decision and that for this reason also this ......