General

O'Neill v Dublin City Council & Anor (Approved)

[2022] IEHC 2022IEHC661High Court of Ireland Decisions2022

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

                  Before the Court is a notice of motion issued on 2 June 2022 for the plaintiff seeking an order pursuant to O. 63(1)(33) and/or O. 49(7) of the Rules of the Superior Courts (� RSC �) remitting these proceedings to the Dublin Circuit Court for hearing. The issue between the plaintiff and the second named defendant concerns the delay and expense incurred and to be incurred if the order is granted at this stage.

                  The most efficient way to outline the background is to set out a chronology of relevant events:

27/07/2016 - the authorisation from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (� PIAB �) to bring these proceedings against the first named defendant (� DCC �) was issued;

Sept 2019 - according to the grounding affidavit of the plaintiff�s solicitor sworn on 30 May 2022 the plaintiff had experienced pain radiating down her left leg. Following referral, it was concluded by an orthopaedic surgeon in September 2019 that the plaintiff did not require surgery even though she had developed chronic pain in her lower back.

09/04/2020 - the authorisation from PIAB to bring proceedings against the second named defendant, Duggan Brothers, issued.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

The parties had a date later this month for the trial in the High Court but the trial was adjourned pending the determination of this application. The parties will now be able to apply on 20 October 2022 for a new trial date.

I also conclude that the trial judge in the High Court may be able to take account of the plaintiff’s application to remit without objection from DCC (albeit delayed) in considering and exercising discretion in any future application for a differential costs order following the conclusion of these proceedings.

Solicitors for the plaintiff: O'Hanrahan Lally D'alton LLP

Solicitors for the second defendant: Tormey Solicitors LLP

Counsel for the plaintiff: Seamus Collins BL

Counsel for the second defendant: Julia Leo BL

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More General cases

Mrs S Copeland v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (England and Wales : Disability Discrimination)

[2026] UKET 6016328_2025

Pepper Finance Corporation [Ireland] Designated Activity Company v O'Reilly [Otherwise O'Reilly] (Approved)

[2026] IEHC 2026IEHC16

Charles Kelly Ltd v Companies Act 2014 (Approved)

[2026] IEHC 2026IEHC140

O'Donnell v Superintendent For The Cahir District and Anor (Approved)

[2026] IEHC 2026IEHC226

Rogers v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors (Approved)

[2026] IEHC 2026IECA5

Pender v Punter Southall Group Limited (Court of Appeal : Appeal (Civil) : Crow, Perry, Wolffe : Costs)

[2026] UR 2026_073

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.