Dillon V. Dunnes Stores (1966. IR 397 Case Study

2580 Words11 Pages

Dillon v Dunnes Stores [1966] IR 397 In this case an incident took place at the defendant 's store, where store detectives asked many questions from shop assistant and also director of the company, and was found guilty of pilfering store goods. The plaintiff had to be and was detained for a long time in the defendant 's offices and questioned intrrogated by and about the and suspected alleged theft. She was told that she was was ordered that until a written confession os made she will not go out confession, which she eventually did. The plaintiff claimed damages for false imprisonment, and for conspiracy to imprison unlawfully. At the trial of the action, damages of £5000 were awarded against each of the five defendants: the company, two directors of the company, and the two store detectives involved. In the Supreme Court, an appeal on liability was allowed in respect of three of the defendants, and a new …show more content…

Cooper v O 'Connell, Unreported, Supreme Court, 5 June 1997 Cooper v O 'Connell was a case of a dentist.was liable for professional negligence. The plaintiff was a victim of had undertaken extensive but unsuccessful dental work of the defendant. After a long series of visits, lasting several years, the defendant accepted that he could not remedy the not successful work and referred the plaintiff to another dentist. This dentist was also unable to help the plaintiff, and the plaintiff ultimately attended a third practitioner in Dublin, who over the course of several years was able to antidote the situation. Nevertheless, the plaintiff suffered continuing pain. High Court gave a descion according to which, the defendant was found liable in negligence, and exemplary damages were refused. The plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages of £80,000 pain and suffering which they suffered in the past and £25,000 for future pain and distress Damages for financial loss were also awarded (£50,000). The assessment of damages was appealed by the plaintiff

Open Document