Barry v Renaissance Security Services Ltd & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 115 (20 May 2022)

Barry v Renaissance Security Services Ltd & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 115 (20 May 2022)

The Court of Appeal held that while the plaintiff was guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay, the High Court correctly placed the burden on the defendants to show that the balance of justice required dismissal. The defendants failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice or countervailing circumstances to tip the balance in favour of striking out the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's refusal to strike out the claim was upheld.

Citation
[2022] IECA 115
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Alan Barry; Defendant/appellant: Renaissance Security Services Limited; Defendant/appellant: Mateusz Grzeskowika
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal to Strike Out Claim for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing to strike out proceedings affirmed.
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Want of Prosecution, Striking Out Proceedings, Balance of Justice, Personal Injuries, Assault and Battery, Negligence, Breach of Duty
Civil Procedure Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Want of Prosecution Striking Out Proceedings Balance of Justice Personal Injuries Assault and Battery Negligence +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Barry

Plaintiff/respondent

Renaissance Security Services Limited

Defendant/appellant

Mateusz Grzeskowika

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal to Strike Out Claim for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the claim was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice required dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that while the plaintiff was guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay, the High Court correctly placed the burden on the defendants to show that the balance of justice required dismissal. The defendants failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice or countervailing circumstances to tip the balance in favour of striking out the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's refusal to strike out the claim was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing to strike out proceedings affirmed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs of the motion in the High Court.