Hughes & Anor -v- Cusack [2016] IEHC 34 (25 January 2016)

Hughes & Anor -v- Cusack [2016] IEHC 34 (25 January 2016)

The court found that the respondents' delay between 2007 and 2011 in prosecuting the claim was both inordinate and inexcusable. However, the court held that the applicant's right to a fair trial had not been impaired by the delay, as the core issues related to documentary evidence and expert testimony, and no real prejudice was demonstrated. The balance of justice lay in favour of allowing the proceedings to continue.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 34
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Oliver Hughes; Plaintiff/respondent: Fabola Limited; Defendant/applicant: Michael Cusack (practising as Michael E Cusack And Co.)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence and Breach of Contract (plenary Summons) / Application to Strike Out/dismiss for Want of Prosecution or Inordinate/inexcusable Delay
Outcome
Application to dismiss/strike out refused; proceedings to continue.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Balance of Justice, Professional Negligence by Solicitor, Breach of Contract, Right to Fair Trial
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Balance of Justice Professional Negligence by Solicitor Breach of Contract +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Hughes

Plaintiff/respondent

Fabola Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Cusack (practising as Michael E Cusack And Co.)

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence and Breach of Contract (plenary Summons) / Application to Strike Out/dismiss for Want of Prosecution or Inordinate/inexcusable Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' delay in prosecuting the claim was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be dismissed or struck out for want of prosecution or under the court's inherent jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the balance of justice lies in favour of allowing the case to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' delay between 2007 and 2011 in prosecuting the claim was both inordinate and inexcusable. However, the court held that the applicant's right to a fair trial had not been impaired by the delay, as the core issues related to documentary evidence and expert testimony, and no real prejudice was demonstrated. The balance of justice lay in favour of allowing the proceedings to continue.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss/strike out refused; proceedings to continue.

Orders

  • Application to dismiss or strike out the proceedings for want of prosecution or inordinate/inexcusable delay is refused.
  • The proceedings are to continue and should be given priority for hearing.