Gerard James

1 month ago | mondaq.com | Byrne Wallace |Liam McCabe |Gerard James

William Fry successfully defended a Judicial Review ground onbehalf of its developer client, which ground An BordPleanála had already conceded. As noted by Humphreys J, noprevious developer in the State has succeeded in defending anobjection which An Bord Pleanála was prepared to concede. Avery interesting case in relation to "harmless error" indecisions by An Bord Pleanála and a great win for ourclient.

Oct 14, 2024 | mondaq.com | Gerard James |Gail Nohilly |Nickolas Dergach

The respondent alleged that the insurance policy specifically excluded this type of property damage. The respondent applied for a stay on the Proceedings under Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, to allow the issues to be referred to and determined by arbitration.

Oct 10, 2024 | williamfry.com | Gail Nohilly |Ashely Hennessy |Gerard James |Nickolas Dergach

The claimants in Jephson and Jephson v Aviva Insurance Ireland DAC [2024] IEHC 309, issued proceedings before the High Court (Court) in 2019 arising out of a refusal by the respondent to indemnify them in respect of a claim made under an insurance policy arising out of property damage caused by subsidence or landfall (Proceedings). The respondent alleged that the insurance policy specifically excluded this type of property damage.

Oct 10, 2024 | lexology.com | Gerard James |Gail Nohilly |Nickolas Dergach

The claimants in Jephson and Jephson v Aviva Insurance Ireland DAC [2024] IEHC 309, issued proceedings before the High Court (Court) in 2019 arising out of a refusal by the respondent to indemnify them in respect of a claim made under an insurance policy arising out of property damage caused by subsidence or landfall (Proceedings). The respondent alleged that the insurance policy specifically excluded this type of property damage.

Sep 16, 2024 | lexology.com | Gerard James |Gail Nohilly

In a recent Circuit Court case, Howard v Crown Paints Ireland Limited, the defendant leased factory premises from the plaintiff landlords for a ten-year period from August 2008, subject to an agreed rent. The defendant remained in occupation following the expiry of the lease and served a Notice of Intention to Claim Relief, claiming the right to a new tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 (Act).