Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IEHC 474 ECLI:IE:HC:2008:474 AI generated

High Court allows plaintiff to plead limitation statute provisions in reply to counterclaim.

Case Number IEHC 474
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court permitted the plaintiff to plead specific sections of the Statute of Limitations 1957 in his reply to a counterclaim. Mr. Croke, a former employee of Waterford Crystal, argued these provisions were necessary to address time-bar issues arising from his long employment history. The court ruled that the procedural mechanism was valid, allowing the plaintiff to raise these statutory defenses despite the complexity of the case history.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 44 and s. 71(1)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957; A plaintiff is entitled to plead limitation provisions in a reply to a counterclaim to assert statutory bars on the defendant's claim.

Keywords

AI generated
Statute of Limitations 1957 reply pleading counterclaim defense time bar limitation High Court procedure employment dispute procedural fairness

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 44 of the Statute of Limitations 1957
Justice Birmingham delivered on the.i;Z 9 day of April, 2008 Issue before the Court 1(1) The issue before the Court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to plead by way of reply the provisions of s. 44 and s.
s. 71(1)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957
44 and s. 71(1)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

[2008] IEHC 474

THE HIGH COURT

[2001 No. 6543P]

BETWEEN

WALTER CROKE

PLAINTIFF

AND

WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED

AND

IRISH PENSIONS TRUST LIMITED

DEFENDANTS

-di,

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Birmingham delivered on the.i;Z 9 day of April, 2008 Issue before the Court 1(1) The issue before the Court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to plead by way of reply the provisions of s. 44 and s. 71(1)(b) of the Statute of Limitations 1957.

The Nature and History of the Proceedings

2(1) The present proceedings have a long, complex and it must be said tangled history to which it is necessary to refer in order to put the matter now before the Court in context. 2(2) The plaintiff in the proceedings, Mr. Walter Croke, is a former employee of the first named defendant, Waterford Crystal Limited (Waterford Crystal). He was employed by Waterford Crystal between 1965 and 1992. In the period before he ceased to be employed by Waterford Crystal he was working as a gas blower.