Strike out Vs Dismissed

...And Justice · 24-08-2016 06:30PM #1

I was in a messy court case recently, all above board i was found innocent as was the case anyway. The question is, what is the difference between a strike out and dismissed. The case was dismissed, but is recorded as a strike out on the courts.ie website, What's the difference between the two terms of reference?

4ensic15 · 24-08-2016 07:25PM

...And Justice wrote: »

I was in a messy court case recently, all above board i was found innocent as was the case anyway. The question is, what is the difference between a strike out and dismissed. The case was dismissed, but is recorded as a strike out on the courts.ie website, What's the difference between the two terms of reference?

What part of the courts.ie website?

GM228 · 24-08-2016 08:27PM

Dismiss: An Order the court makes once it has heard the facts of a case and decides in a defendants favour. The plaintif bringing the case cannot bring the same case again.

Strike Out: An Order against a plaintif where there is a procedural or technical flaw in their legal proceedings and application before court. The court does not need to hear evidence to make the order but the plaintif is entitled to bring the legal proceedings again once they have remedied the defect.

4ensic15 · 25-08-2016 07:45AM

GM228 wrote: »

Dismiss: An Order the court makes once it has heard the facts of a case and decides in a defendants favour. The plaintif bringing the case cannot bring the same case again.

.

It has to be "dismissed on the merits" for it to be immune from further prosecution. A simple dismiss is not enough.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 09:32AM

4ensic15 wrote: »

What part of the courts.ie website?

High court, it says in related criminal case which was wrongly brought against me which was "dismissed" it says "Common Law / MOTION Strike Out". When I was in court the judge said "Dismissed"

It's listed as "strike out". I'm not looking for advice, just someone mentioned to me that there is a difference.

Kings Inns or bust · 25-08-2016 04:49PM

...And Justice wrote: »

High court, it says in related criminal case which was wrongly brought against me which was "dismissed" it says "Common Law / MOTION Strike Out". When I was in court the judge said "Dismissed"

It's listed as "strike out". I'm not looking for advice, just someone mentioned to me that there is a difference.

If it was wrongly brought against you, e.g. They meant to summons 'And Justice of Captains Road' when they actually got 'And Justice of Cashel Road' then it's struck out as the case can't go ahead.

Splitting hairs, but a court can't 'find you innocent' they can only not find guilt meaning your presumption of innocence is never rebutted.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 05:19PM

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

If it was wrongly brought against you, e.g. They meant to summons 'And Justice of Captains Road' when they actually got 'And Justice of Cashel Road' then it's struck out as the case can't go ahead.

Splitting hairs, but a court can't 'find you innocent' they can only not find guilt meaning your presumption of innocence is never rebutted.

When I meant wrongly, I meant that all the evidence pointed in the other direction. For some reason I was summoned to the CCJ for prosecution. It was dismissed by the judge, but recorded as strike out.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 05:52PM

...And Justice wrote: »

When I meant wrongly, I meant that all the evidence pointed in the other direction. For some reason I was summoned to the CCJ for prosecution. It was dismissed by the judge, but recorded as strike out.

I do not understand you said it was a CCJ prosecution and said "Common Law / MOTION Strike Out" that is a civil case not a criminal. The common law motions list is held in the four courts not CCJ.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 06:00PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I do not understand you said it was a CCJ prosecution and said "Common Law / MOTION Strike Out" that is a civil case not a criminal. The common law motions list is held in the four courts not CCJ.

I was in the big round building beside the phoenix park on criminal charges, which were without foundation, there is a civil case brought against me in the high court as a result of somebody thinking I was going to get prosecuted in the CCJ they lodged their "claim" before the criminal charges were dismissed as I understand it. When I search the high court website it says, "related case common law/motion strike out"

That's as much info I can give you unless you want to PM, I'm not going to name names or brake the charter.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 06:07PM

...And Justice wrote: »

I was in the big round building beside the phoenix park on criminal charges, which were without foundation, there is a civil case brought against me in the high court as a result of somebody thinking I was going to get prosecuted in the CCJ they lodged their "claim" before the criminal charges were dismissed as I understand it. When I search the high court website it says, "related case common law/motion strike out"

That's as much info I can give you unless you want to PM, I'm not going to name names or brake the charter.

I think I understand, a motion being struck out usually does not relate to the overall case. The main case may still be going on the reference to strike out does not relate to the criminal case and may only relate to a motion in the civil case.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 06:37PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I think I understand, a motion being struck out usually does not relate to the overall case. The main case may still be going on the reference to strike out does not relate to the criminal case and may only relate to a motion in the civil case.

It's a classic "The Law is an Ass", Im actually considering going into criminal law after this and train as a barrister , I have a degree in science, but this road has been a tough one, I am very familiar with regulation and in particular bolloxology related to the MED/PHARMA sector, I may look at IP but I think criminal law would be more lucrative as a JC.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 06:46PM

...And Justice wrote: »

It's a classic "The Law is an Ass"

Why?

The following is an example a person crashes car and is accused of dangerous driving causing serious injuries. The person is aquited. So that case is over. The injuries person brings a civil case, as part of that a motion is brought, which is struck out, say a motion in defaul, it may be agreed that a defence is to be filled so the motion is struck out. So the civil case still goes on. Just because you don't understand a system does not make the law an ass.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 06:50PM

...And Justice wrote: »

It's a classic "The Law is an Ass", Im actually considering going into criminal law after this and train as a barrister , I have a degree in science, but this road has been a tough one, I am very familiar with regulation and in particular bolloxology related to the MED/PHARMA sector, I may look at IP but I think criminal law would be more lucrative as a JC.

Lol most barristers earn tiny money in criminal law. in Dublin some junior barristers work in the DC for way less than minimum wage.

IP law in Ireland is very small and tiny for the barristers at a guess a few dozen make money at it.

Kings Inns or bust · 25-08-2016 06:57PM

If you want to work in IP and have atop degree from one of top 10-20 universities then look at a solicitors firm in the UK, they will usually pay you to retrain.

If you'd like to spend some time as a JC practising criminal, get 15K light it on fire and sit in the DC for a year in a dressing gown.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 06:58PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Why?

The following is an example a person crashes car and is accused of dangerous driving causing serious injuries. The person is aquited. So that case is over. The injuries person brings a civil case, as part of that a motion is brought, which is struck out, say a motion in defaul, it may be agreed that a defence is to be filled so the motion is struck out. So the civil case still goes on. Just because you don't understand a system does not make the law an ass.

It's an ass, I was nearly killed in a RTA and the other party broke red lights, which was proved in court but the other party could't be prosecuted because of the 6 month rule, I was and I won, smarty pants went on to claim for damages, which are bÚll**** since he hit me. I had to learn how to walk again because of this, failures or corruption in the Gardaí, I'm not sure. The guy was connected as far as I know.

We know this now, I just wanted to find out the difference between strike out/ dismissed.

Anyway I think the question has been answered. Thanks for all your help, I'll speak to my solicitor Monday.

Kings Inns or bust · 25-08-2016 06:59PM

I'd suggest a counter claim.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 06:59PM

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

If you want to work in IP and have atop degree from one of top 10-20 universities then look at a solicitors firm in the UK, they will usually pay you to retrain.

If you'd like to spend some time as a JC practising criminal, get 15K light it on fire and sit in the DC for a year in a dressing gown.

Super stuff, I have a friend that works in IP, he devilled for a year, he was also an engineer, best thing he's ever done.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 07:00PM

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I'd suggest a counter claim.

Done, they're looking for 100% based on the evidence

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 07:02PM

...And Justice wrote: »

It's an ass, I was nearly killed in a RTA and the other party broke red lights, which was proved in court but the other party could't be prosecuted because of the 6 month rule, I was and I won, smarty pants went on to claim for damages, which are bÚll**** since he hit me. I had to learn how to walk again because of this, failures or corruption in the Gardaí, I'm not sure. The guy was connected as far as I know.

We know this now, I just wanted to find out the difference between strike out/ dismissed.

Anyway I think the question has been answered. Thanks for all your help, I'll speak to my solicitor Monday.

Dangerous Driving causing serious injury can be prosecuted after years. The rule under the petty sessions act only applies to summary proceedings. So you where given incorrect information or someone is telling stories.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 07:08PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Dangerous Driving causing serious injury can be prosecuted after years. The rule under the petty sessions act only applies to summary proceedings. So you where given incorrect information or someone is telling stories.

Really, so I can be re-prosicuted? "Is that the right word?" There's no evidence, and I got off on a witness statement which can't be changed......Right?

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 07:13PM

So hypothetically under the set of laws in Ireland can the other party be prosecuted? Years after the event?

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 07:14PM

...And Justice wrote: »

Really, so I can be re-prosicuted? "Is that the right word?" There's no evidence, and I got off on a witness statement which can't be changed......Right?

I did not say you could be re-prosecuted I said the information you gave that a person could not be prosecuted after 6 months is not correct in the case of serious crimes.

What do you mean a witness statement can not be changed. The only evidence that matters in a criminal trial is the evidence given in court by the witness which can be different to that given in a statement. Where ever you are getting your info a lot is incorrect.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 07:16PM

...And Justice wrote: »

So hypothetically under the set of laws in Ireland can the other party be prosecuted? Years after the event?

It depends on the crime, but yes a person can and often is prosecuted for serious crimes years after the event example rape, child abuse and murder you will be aware of such case taking place recently for events in the 70's etc. Of course any person so charged will raise delay arguments.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 07:22PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I did not say you could be re-prosecuted I said the information you gave that a person could not be prosecuted after 6 months is not correct in the case of serious crimes.

What do you mean a witness statement can not be changed. The only evidence that matters in a criminal trial is the evidence given in court by the witness which can be different to that given in a statement. Where ever you are getting your info a lot is incorrect.

So the way it worked was that the witness saw me at XXX at such a time and the lights were XXX at that time, light signal engineer proved it too. When the witness didn't turn up in court, the statement was looked at and there was a lot of edits to it, and I mean from Green, to orange to red, the Judge dismissed it and grilled the Garda for being "incompetent"

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 07:23PM

...And Justice wrote: »

So the way it worked was that the witness saw me at XXX at such a time and the lights were XXX at that time, light signal engineer proved it too. When the witness didn't turn up in court, the statement was looked at and there was a lot of edits to it, and I mean from Green, to orange to red, the Judge dismissed it and grilled the Garda for being "incompetent"

Was it a district court case?

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 07:26PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Was it a district court case?

As I said CCJ beside Phoenix park, I was never in court before so I'm not sure of the terms of reference, district, criminal, high, It's a bit of a minefield, I would say district Dublin CCJ.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 07:31PM

...And Justice wrote: »

As I said CCJ beside Phoenix park, I was never in court before so I'm not sure of the terms of reference, district, criminal, high, It's a bit of a minefield, I would say district Dublin CCJ.

Was it on the ground floor? The reason I ask is in a district court case a statement can not be used if a witness does not turn up to give evidence. It would seem that the case would have been dismissed as there was not a necessary witness. So you entered the court as you left it, innocent.

Any civil case would be defended by your insurance company and in reality has little to do with you other than possibly being a witness for the defence. While the case would be in your name as defendant the solicitor and barristers would be instructed by the insurance company.

I assume you have issued proceedings against the other person.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 07:44PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Was it on the ground floor? The reason I ask is in a district court case a statement can not be used if a witness does not turn up to give evidence. It would seem that the case would have been dismissed as there was not a necessary witness. So you entered the court as you left it, innocent.

Any civil case would be defended by your insurance company and in reality has little to do with you other than possibly being a witness for the defence. While the case would be in your name as defendant the solicitor and barristers would be instructed by the insurance company.

I assume you have issued proceedings against the other person

Yes I have, it was on floor 2 criminal court, Civil is as follows, 5 barristers on the defense side from the insurance company looking for 100% win ( evidence point's other way). Counter with a JC that's had his name in the papers a few times, it's cost me dearly, but hopefully it will be over soon.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 07:48PM

...And Justice wrote: »

Yes I have, it was on floor 2 criminal court, Civil is as follows, 5 barristers on the defense side from the insurance company looking for 100% win ( evidence point's other way). Counter with a JC that's had his name in the papers a few times, it's cost me dearly, but hopefully it will be over soon.

I really don't understand what you saying which case cost you dearly?

5 barristers on one side?? Are you sure the norm is at most 3 for plaintiff 2 Seniors and one Barrister the defence is 2 1 SC one barrister

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 07:53PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I really don't understand what you saying which case cost you dearly?

5 barristers on one side?? Are you sure the norm is at most 3 for plaintiff 2 Seniors and one Barrister the defence is 2 1 SC one barrister

€30K, new car, medical expenses , Lawyers, reports for this and that, mental health.. it's obscene particularly to the mental health of my wife and children. They are all on the make IMO.

So yeah it's cost me dearly....

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 07:58PM

...And Justice wrote: »

€30K, new car, medical expenses , Lawyers, reports for this and that, mental health.. it's obscene particularly to the mental health of my wife and children. They are all on the make IMO.

So yeah it's cost me dearly....

So your case against him has cost you. If you think they all on the make why take a case? The cost of your new car is not the issue of professionals. The person who has caused you and your family mental health issues is not the lawyers but the guy who crashed into you.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 08:09PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So your case against him has cost you. If you think they all on the make why take a case? The cost of your new car is not the issue of professionals. The person who has caused you and your family mental health issues is not the lawyers but the guy who crashed into you.

I didn't take the case against him, he did against me and I countered. Look I'm not getting into the details. He has cost me dearly end of.

Mods, Question partially answered, still murky unless I give exact details, not going to happen. Pro Hoc Vice thanks for your insight and thanks for all the other contributions. Close thread.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 08:20PM

...And Justice wrote: »

I didn't take the case against him, he did against me and I countered. Look I'm not getting into the details. He has cost me dearly end of.

Mods, Question partially answered, still murky unless I give exact details, not going to happen. Pro Hoc Vice thanks for your insight and thanks for all the other contributions. Close thread.

Did you apply to PIAB? It's just I have never seen a personal injuries case been fought via counterclaim. It just does not add up to be honest.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 08:28PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Did you apply to PIAB? It's just I have never seen a personal injuries case been fought via counterclaim. It just does not add up to be honest.

Yep, had to sign all the paper work at my solicitor's office. Counter claim after faiiled criminal charges brought against me , think about it for a minute.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 08:32PM

...And Justice wrote: »

Yep, had to sign all the paper work at my solicitor's office. Counter claim after faiiled criminal charges brought against me , think about it for a minute.

I am thinking about it it's just not the way I would have done it. I just don't understand how the counterclaim would work as your insurance company have carriage of defence and you would have carriage of counterclaim. That would cause issues on any settlement of the case. It just does not add up for me.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 08:44PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I am thinking about it it's just not the way I would have done it. I just don't understand how the counterclaim would work as your insurance company have carriage of defence and you would have carriage of counterclaim. That would cause issues on any settlement of the case. It just does not add up for me.

We'll I was told by the barristers for the insurance company, that if they win, it automatically binds the counter claim.

Look I'm not in here telling porkies, look through some of my first posts on the subject, last year, all I can tell you is my experience nothing more. I'm not a lawyer.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 08:47PM

...And Justice wrote: »

We'll I was told by the barristers for the insurance company, that if they win, it automatically binds the counter claim.

Look I'm not in here telling porkies, look through some of my first posts on the subject, last year, all I can tell you is my experience nothing more. I'm not a lawyer.

I never said anyone was telling porkies, I just having done both plaintiff and defence personal injuries have never come across a insurance case counterclaim there may be very valid reason for doing so but I can't think of any.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 08:57PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I never said anyone was telling porkies, I just having done both plaintiff and defence personal injuries have never come across a insurance case counterclaim there may be very valid reason for doing so but I can't think of any.

The insurance are not counter claiming, they are defending me, I'm counter claiming with my lawyer and solicitor. His insurance are defending him on the counter, he is bringing initial case with his solicitor.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 09:00PM

...And Justice wrote: »

The insurance are not counter claiming, they are defending me, I'm counter claiming with my lawyer and solicitor. His insurance are defending him on the counter, he is bringing initial case with his solicitor.

Now I think I understand you have brought your own claim against him with your own solicitor and barrister. That is a claim in its own right and not a counterclaim.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 09:29PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Now I think I understand you have brought your own claim against him with your own solicitor and barrister. That is a claim in its own right and not a counterclaim.

Yes spurred on by is high civil court claim based on criminal charges against me that never came to fruition. Insurance jump in to defend me, I countered though my own legal team. That's the nuts and bolts of it.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 09:32PM

...And Justice wrote: »

Yes spurred on by is high civil court claim based on criminal charges against me that never came to fruition. Insurance jump in to defend me, I countered though my own legal team. That's the nuts and bolts of it.

In legal terms a counterclaim is a very specific thing what you have done is take a claim in which you are plaintiff. In a counterclaim you remain the defendant.

Even if a criminal matter is won by you that in legal terms does not effect his civil case.

...And Justice · 25-08-2016 09:42PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

In legal terms a counterclaim is a very specific thing what you have done is take a claim in which you are plaintiff. In a counterclaim you remain the defendant.

Even if a criminal matter is won by you that in legal terms does not effect his civil case.

Ahh I see, all the legal eagle legals are calling it counter claim casually in the office. And I'm the plaintiff in the second one. Makes sense.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-08-2016 09:51PM

...And Justice wrote: »

Ahh I see, all the legal eagle legals are calling it counter claim casually in the office. And I'm the plaintiff in the second one. Makes sense.

It's prob their way of sorting out the cases. The criminal case the civil case in which he is plaintiff and the second case in which you are plaintiff, so to no confuse them they Might call the second case a counterclaim, but strictly speaking that would not be a counterclaim.

Strike out Vs Dismissed

Comments