# Defendent hasn't made an appearance



## John joe (4 Jan 2009)

I have served Plenary summons on the Defendant in Oct 2008. He has not appearence made in the High Court. What do I have to do next?


----------



## bond-007 (4 Jan 2009)

*Re: Defendant hasn't made an Appearence*

You need to file a motion for judgement in the masters court. The master will most likely allow more time for the defendant to make an appearance if the defendant responds to the motion. 

Is the defendant a person or company?


----------



## John joe (2 Feb 2009)

*Re: Defendant hasn't made an Appearence*



bond-007 said:


> You need to file a motion for judgement in the masters court. The master will most likely allow more time for the defendant to make an appearance if the defendant responds to the motion.
> 
> Is the defendant a person or company?


 
Will the motion for judgement be headed "motion for judgement" also I take that it will need to be filed with an affadavit? correct?


----------



## McCrack (2 Feb 2009)

John joe is this going to be a regular thing with you on this site?

Running your case from an internet forum by asking strangers for what essentially should be professional legal advice?

Dangerous move.


----------



## John joe (2 Feb 2009)

McCrack said:


> John joe is this going to be a regular thing with you on this site?
> 
> Running your case from an internet forum by asking strangers for what essentially should be professional legal advice?
> 
> Dangerous move.


 
Yes. I am here looking for advice. After all is called 'Ask about Law'. So if you dont have any positive add to my thread then don't bother posting!!


----------



## jhegarty (2 Feb 2009)

John joe said:


> Yes. I am here looking for advice. After all is called 'Ask about Law'. So if you dont have any positive add to my thread then don't bother posting!!




I think advising against taking legal advise from anonymous people off the internet is excellent advise.


No offence to bond who I am sure has posted correct advise.


----------



## mathepac (2 Feb 2009)

John joe said:


> ... So if you dont have any positive add to my thread then don't bother posting!!


John Joe, if you choose to post on a public forum, then you have to accept other posters rights to post within the forum guidelines.

BTW its not "your" thread - its a thread you started, and the reservations posted by McCrack have already been voiced by others, myself included.

If you don't find the responses helpful or positive, then you have other options as pointed out previously.


----------



## John joe (2 Feb 2009)

mathepac said:


> John Joe, if you choose to post on a public forum, then you have to accept other posters rights to post within the forum guidelines.
> 
> BTW its not "your" thread - its a thread you started, and the reservations posted by McCrack have already been voiced by others, myself included.
> 
> If you don't find the responses helpful or positive, then you have other options as pointed out previously.


 
Again I came here looking for advice as regards to the thread heading. You didn't offer any response to the question asked. I suggest you and McCrack concentrate on acting as a solicitor for your clients and stop coming on here to give off about lay litigants looking for advice!!


----------



## McCrack (2 Feb 2009)

John joe I would if I had a job 

Honestly I remember posting earlier to you saying that if your case (I  understand it to be a personal injuries) had merit you will easily find a solicitor practicing in litigation to take it on a no win, no fee. 

Whatever apathy you have for lawyers needs to be put aside for your own good. I presume you are aware that costs follow the event which means that if you are unsucessful you will be liable for the defendant's costs. 
I dont know the facts or merits of your case but I can think of one person who had a strong personal injury case decided to run it themselves and fall flat on their face basically due to their own incompetance and point blank refusal to engage the services of a solicitor.

Good luck.


----------



## Optimist (2 Feb 2009)

John Joe, if you can take a few seconds to read the thread again you might just realise that McCrack actually gave you the best advice available. Its easy to short snappy answers and good soundbites but without the full details of your case, it's very possible that you will not find what you are looking for on the internet. For every rule in the statute books, there are several exceptions... and as a result, many swords for you to fall on.

However, feel free to give out to me too.... but i am actually offering you advice, just hope you can realise that.


----------



## mathepac (2 Feb 2009)

John joe said:


> ... I suggest you ... concentrate on acting as a solicitor for your clients ...


Thanks for the suggestion, but the Law Society might have something to say to me if I followed it.  


John joe said:


> ...  and stop coming on here to give off about lay litigants looking for advice!!


Nah, I like it here and I'll stick around until the mods ban me or my broadband payments bounce.


----------



## Artois (2 Feb 2009)

Perhaps you could send the defendant an Affidavit of Verification with that Motion


----------



## John joe (2 Feb 2009)

Artois said:


> Perhaps you could send the defendant an Affidavit of Verification with that Motion


 
Thank you for your postive reply. But as it turns out under order 13 Paragragh 9 of the Superior court rules. I can proceed to run a trial without these defendants as there are several other defendants in the case. 

"9. Where there are several defendants to such a plenary summons as is mentioned in rule 6 and one or more of such defendants appear to such summons, and another or others of them fail to appear, the plaintiff may proceed under the said rule against the defendant or defendants so failing to appear and the application for judgement thereunder shall be heard and the damages (if any) to which the plaintiff may be entitled ascertained, as against such defendant or defendants, at the same time as the trial of the proceeding or issue therein against the other defendant or defendants, unless the Court shall otherwise direct."

Thread closed.


----------



## mercman (2 Feb 2009)

John joe said:


> Thread closed.



That says it all doesn't it.


----------



## chrisboy (2 Feb 2009)

John joe said:


> Thank you for your postive reply. But as it turns out under order 13 Paragragh 9 of the Superior court rules. I can proceed to run a trial without these defendants as there are several other defendants in the case.
> 
> "9. Where there are several defendants to such a plenary summons as is mentioned in rule 6 and one or more of such defendants appear to such summons, and another or others of them fail to appear, the plaintiff may proceed under the said rule against the defendant or defendants so failing to appear and the application for judgement thereunder shall be heard and the damages (if any) to which the plaintiff may be entitled ascertained, as against such defendant or defendants, at the same time as the trial of the proceeding or issue therein against the other defendant or defendants, unless the Court shall otherwise direct."
> 
> Thread closed.



Didnt know you were a mod and could close threads!!


----------



## Madangan (3 Feb 2009)

John joe only likes advice he agrees with..this may be one of the reasons he has not found a solicitor he likes..


I think ill adopt his attitude...from now on the only people who are right about any topic under the sun will be me and everyone who agrees with me..

I feel happier already!


----------



## MOB (3 Feb 2009)

I think I have in the past volunteered some advice to the OP.  It seems to me that if you are looking for legal advice online, it would be sensible to at least pretend to want to hear what practicing lawyers have to say on the topic.  OP's antipathy to lawyers makes this impossible;  I am reminded somewhat of the old saw that there are three ways to get a thing done: do it yourself,  pay someone to do it or tell your kids not to do it.

It seems that any thing I or any other lawyer might say to the OP seems to produce the exact opposite of the intended effect;   Nevertheless, I wish him luck.


----------



## nuac (3 Feb 2009)

I think John Joe is winding us up.

If not he has a lot to learn about running a personal injuries action e.g. when issues like replies to particulars, compliance with discovery, Section 17 offers etc etc.

However it is a free country.    He certainly can proceed as a lay litigant but should he be clogging up the board with the simplest of queries?


----------



## John joe (3 Feb 2009)

MOB said:


> I think I have in the past volunteered some advice to the OP. It seems to me that if you are looking for legal advice online, it would be sensible to at least pretend to want to hear what practicing lawyers have to say on the topic. OP's antipathy to lawyers makes this impossible; I am reminded somewhat of the old saw that there are three ways to get a thing done: do it yourself, pay someone to do it or tell your kids not to do it.
> 
> It seems that any thing I or any other lawyer might say to the OP seems to produce the exact opposite of the intended effect; Nevertheless, I wish him luck.


 
I am hearing all the replies from solicitors on here but its what I choose to take on it another thing. Its a terrible indictment on the legal profession and those in postions of trust who cannot be trusted!


----------



## Dachshund (3 Feb 2009)

If this is the same personal injury case as before then I suggest that the OP check that he has read the correct Order of the Superior Court Rules. There is a specific Order regarding court procedure of personal injury cases. The OP will find the answer to the original question there.


----------



## McCrack (4 Feb 2009)

John joe said:


> I am hearing all the replies from solicitors on here but its what I choose to take on it another thing. Its a terrible indictment on the legal profession and those in postions of trust who cannot be trusted!


 
What are you talking about now? Are you seriously tarnishing the whole legal profession in Ireland based on whatever responses you get here and/or whatever bad experience you may have had in the real world with whatever solicitor or two you had previously engaged? 

One or two bad experiences (including the "horror stories" ala Byrne and Lynn in the media) is not indicative of a body of over 10,000 practicing solicitors. 

I think the Gardai faced similiar in the aftermath of Morris, again the corrupt few should not reflect the vast majority.

A man who represents himself has a fool for a client...I've seen it on so many levels before.


----------



## mercman (4 Feb 2009)

Mc. I think you echo the thoughts and instinct of so many others that have read this thread.


----------



## TheBlock (4 Feb 2009)

mercman said:


> Mc. I think you echo the thoughts and instinct of so many others that have read this thread.


 
Agreed. Including those who have no legal background whatsoever. It's plain bad manners to ask for advice and the bad mounth those who offer it (even if you do not like the advice given).

Thread Closed


----------



## John joe (4 Feb 2009)

TheBlock said:


> Agreed. Including those who have no legal background whatsoever. It's plain bad manners to ask for advice and the bad mounth those who offer it (even if you do not like the advice given).
> 
> Thread Closed


 
If you notice the ones that didnt offer any positive advice is the ones that are getting there backs up now. I bad mouthed people that offered advice? You may want to go back in read the thread and you will in fact find that I had thanked on two occasions on those that had something positive to offer.

A friend of a friend recently started studying Law and the first day the Lecture said "come on lets everybody start lieing now, come on your all training to be barrister and solicitors."

I rest my case!


----------



## Dachshund (4 Feb 2009)

"A friend of a friend recently started studying Law and the first day the Lecture said "come on lets everybody start lieing now, come on your all training to be barrister and solicitors.""

You do know what hearsay is, don't you?


----------



## John joe (5 Feb 2009)

Dachshund said:


> "A friend of a friend recently started studying Law and the first day the Lecture said "come on lets everybody start lieing now, come on your all training to be barrister and solicitors.""
> 
> You do know what hearsay is, don't you?


 
This is factual information I can assure you that. The lecture that had told them was actually the Lord Mayors wife she too was a solicitor.


----------



## jhegarty (5 Feb 2009)

Dachshund said:


> You do know what hearsay is, don't you?





John joe said:


> This is factual information I can assure you that. The lecture that had told them was actually the Lord Mayors wife she too was a solicitor.




That will be a no them.


----------



## McCrack (5 Feb 2009)

John joe said:


> This is factual information I can assure you that. The lecture that had told them was actually the Lord Mayors wife she too was a solicitor.


 

You come across as a bit of a spoof and an idiot.


----------



## Bronte (5 Feb 2009)

OP I tried to understand what was going on by reading your other threads but I gave up.   You seem to think that the whole world is against you even when you have been given very good advice on here.  How do you expect people to help you with an attitude like that?  The best advice you have been given is 'a man who represents himself has a fool for a client'  I've no problem with people going to court themselves but not when they have absolutely not one notion of what they are doing nor will they take good free advice from AAM.


----------



## j26 (5 Feb 2009)

Bronte said:


> OP I tried to understand what was going on by reading your other threads but I gave up.   You seem to think that the whole world is against you even when you have been given very good advice on here.  How do you expect people to help you with an attitude like that?  The best advice you have been given is 'a man who represents himself has a fool for a client'  I've no problem with people going to court themselves but not when they have absolutely not one notion of what they are doing nor will they take good free advice from AAM.


I'm inclined to agree - and I don't ply the trade that you seem to disrespect so much.

I've helped before, but your attitude makes me less inclined to.


----------



## nuac (5 Feb 2009)

John Joe

If you are really taking a personal injuries action as a lay litigant againt several defendants, have you sent an O'Byrne letter to each defendant before issuing proceedings?

If you didn't you may be exposing yourself to costs orders.


----------



## John joe (5 Feb 2009)

nuac said:


> John Joe
> 
> If you are really taking a personal injuries action as a lay litigant againt several defendants, have you sent an O'Byrne letter to each defendant before issuing proceedings?
> 
> If you didn't you may be exposing yourself to costs orders.


 
This is something my solicitor should have done at the start of the case however I don't believe it was done. Each defendant got a Personal Injury summons which had 'General Endorsement of Claim' that about it.


----------



## John joe (8 Feb 2009)

McCrack said:


> You come across as a bit of a spoof and an idiot.


 

Your comment is uncalled for. They say truth hurts and this definitely proves it.

I refer to my comment above in relation to the O Byrne letter. There is the possibility that I could be screwed for legal cost because my Solicitor didn't issue an O Byrne letter and you then give off to me coming on here looking for help. I am going to have to pay the price for my Solicitors Malpractice? You should clearly see why I have no confidence in Solicitors and this is why I will not engage in another!


----------



## Dachshund (9 Feb 2009)

My reading of your saga is as follows: -

You had a disagreement with your solicitor regarding these proceedings and they came off record, as a result of which the High Court ordered them to give you your file.

If you had read your file you would have seen if the solicitor had sent an initiating letter to the Defendant(s) in your case. If they had not, and no other pleadings had been served, and you were insisting on proceeding with the action there was nothing to stop you from issuing such a letter yourself. You cannot now blame the solicitor if you are insisting on proceeding with an action as a lay litigant.

You then drafted a Plenary Summons and attempted to serve it on the Defendant - regardless of the fact that this appears from the scanty information given to be a personal injuries action which has its own particular set of pleadings.

You have persistently looked for advice on this topic over the last 8 months and have been whiny about any opinions expressed that contradict your strongly held beliefs.

If you can't trust a solicitor to run this action for you, why should anonymous posters on an internet forum be any better placed to advise you?


----------



## Optimist (9 Feb 2009)

Let me get this straight - you don't trust solicitors so have decided to run your case yourself. You then ask for advice here to aid you to do this. Why do you trust the advice provided by (potentially) legal advisors here? Is it because

1. You trust virtual advice more than professional advice? or 
2. Is it because it's free?

If the answer to 1 is yes - then no offence but you are a fool. If the answer to 2 is yes them I'm afriad your case is doomed.....


----------

