McGrath -v- Irish Ispat Ltd (In Vol. Liq.) Formerly known as Irish Steel Ltd [2006] IESC 43 (10 July 2006)

McGrath -v- Irish Ispat Ltd (In Vol. Liq.) Formerly known as Irish Steel Ltd [2006] IESC 43 (10 July 2006)

The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable, and the interests of justice required dismissal. The plaintiff's explanations for delay were not accepted as relevant or sufficient. The proposed further evidence did not meet the legal test for admission on appeal and would not have influenced the outcome.

Citation
[2006] IESC 43
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Michael McGrath; Defendant/respondent: Irish Ispat Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) Formerly known as Irish Steel Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (personal Injuries) / Supreme Court Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution and Motion to Admit Further Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; motion to admit further evidence refused
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Admission of Further Evidence on Appeal, Delay in Litigation, Findings of Fact on Appeal
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Admission of Further Evidence on Appeal Delay in Litigation Findings of Fact on Appeal

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael McGrath

Plaintiff/appellant

Irish Ispat Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) Formerly known as Irish Steel Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (personal Injuries) / Supreme Court Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution and Motion to Admit Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether further evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable, and the interests of justice required dismissal. The plaintiff's explanations for delay were not accepted as relevant or sufficient. The proposed further evidence did not meet the legal test for admission on appeal and would not have influenced the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; motion to admit further evidence refused

Orders

  • The appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The motion of the plaintiff seeking to admit further evidence is refused.