Gorman -v- The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors [2015] IECA 41 (03 March 2015)

Gorman -v- The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors [2015] IECA 41 (03 March 2015)

The plaintiff was guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting the claim; the delay could not be excused by reference to defendants’ conduct or issues with the videotape. The balance of justice, considering the modest injuries, lack of specific prejudice, and constitutional/ECHR obligations, favoured dismissal. The defendants would suffer general prejudice if required to defend the claim after such a lapse of time.

Citation
[2015] IECA 41
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Leonard Gorman; Defendants/respondents: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Claim for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Balance of Justice, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Good Name
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Constitutional Law Human Rights Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Balance of Justice Right to Fair Trial +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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Gorman

Plaintiff/appellant

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Claim for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in prosecution of proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice favoured dismissal of the claim
  3. 3 Whether defendants suffered prejudice due to delay

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting the claim; the delay could not be excused by reference to defendants’ conduct or issues with the videotape. The balance of justice, considering the modest injuries, lack of specific prejudice, and constitutional/ECHR obligations, favoured dismissal. The defendants would suffer general prejudice if required to defend the claim after such a lapse of time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed for want of prosecution and inordinate and inexcusable delay.