Hiney -v- Flanagan & ors [2010] IESC 52 (27 October 2010)

Hiney -v- Flanagan & ors [2010] IESC 52 (27 October 2010)

Although there were periods of inordinate and inexcusable delay, particularly in progressing the proceedings, the balance of justice did not require dismissal because the core issue was not prejudiced by the deaths of witnesses, and the plaintiff's right to have his claim heard outweighed any prejudice to the appellants.

Citation
[2010] IESC 52
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Edward Hiney; Defendant/appellant: Barry Flanagan; Defendant/appellant: Gerard J. Donovan; Defendant/appellant: Bernard Hudson; Defendant/appellant: Bruce Doolan; Defendant/appellant: Desmond Reid; Defendant/appellant: BOC Gases Ireland Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal to Dismiss Claim for Delay
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Dismissal for Delay, Balance of Justice, Pension Scheme Eligibility, Discovery
Civil Procedure Employment Law Trusts and Pensions Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Dismissal for Delay Balance of Justice Pension Scheme Eligibility Discovery

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Hiney

Plaintiff/respondent

Barry Flanagan

Defendant/appellant

Gerard J. Donovan

Defendant/appellant

Bernard Hudson

Defendant/appellant

Bruce Doolan

Defendant/appellant

Desmond Reid

Defendant/appellant

BOC Gases Ireland Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal to Dismiss Claim for Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice requires dismissal of the claim
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was prejudiced by the deaths of key witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

Although there were periods of inordinate and inexcusable delay, particularly in progressing the proceedings, the balance of justice did not require dismissal because the core issue was not prejudiced by the deaths of witnesses, and the plaintiff's right to have his claim heard outweighed any prejudice to the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Plaintiff permitted to proceed with claim
  • Case to be given early trial; counsel to mention case in High Court for trial date