Morris v Ryan [2019] IECA 86 (22 March 2019)

Morris v Ryan [2019] IECA 86 (22 March 2019)

The appellant failed to provide any cogent or sustainable reason for not issuing proceedings within the one-year limitation period or for the subsequent delay in seeking an extension. The interests of justice did not require the granting of a direction to extend time, and the statutory requirements for such an extension were not met. The High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing the extension and dismissing the proceedings as statute barred and an abuse of process.

Citation
[2019] IECA 86
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Christian Morris; Defendant/respondent: Aloysius Ryan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Extension of Time for Defamation Proceedings and Dismissing Claim as Statute Barred
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamation, Statute of Limitations, Extension of Time, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Tort Defamation Statute of Limitations Extension of Time Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christian Morris

Plaintiff/appellant

Aloysius Ryan

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing Extension of Time for Defamation Proceedings and Dismissing Claim as Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to a direction extending the limitation period for bringing defamation proceedings under s.11(2)(c)(ii) of the Statute of Limitations, 1957, as amended
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were statute barred
  3. 3 Whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to extend time and in dismissing the proceedings as an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide any cogent or sustainable reason for not issuing proceedings within the one-year limitation period or for the subsequent delay in seeking an extension. The interests of justice did not require the granting of a direction to extend time, and the statutory requirements for such an extension were not met. The High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing the extension and dismissing the proceedings as statute barred and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of direction to extend limitation period under s.11(2)(c)(ii) of the Statute of Limitations, 1957, as amended
  • Dismissal of defamation proceedings as statute barred