McCormack -v- Our Lady Queen Of Peace Achill House of Prayer Ltd [2018] IEHC 26 (23 January 2018)

McCormack -v- Our Lady Queen Of Peace Achill House of Prayer Ltd [2018] IEHC 26 (23 January 2018)

The court held that, although a significant period had elapsed since the alleged undue influence and donation, the pleadings invoked the court's equitable jurisdiction and the issue of undue influence required a trial. The court was not satisfied at this interlocutory stage that the delay was unreasonable or that the defendant would suffer such prejudice as to make it inequitable to allow the action to proceed. The application to dismiss was refused.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 26
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Patrick McCormack (as personal representative in the estate of James McCormack deceased); Defendant/applicant: Our Lady Queen Of Peace Achill House of Prayer Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 January 2018
Procedural Posture
High Court Plenary Action / Application by Defendant to Dismiss Proceedings as Statute Barred And/or for Laches
Outcome
Application to dismiss proceedings refused
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Undue Influence, Laches, Delay in Civil Proceedings, Equitable Relief
Equity Civil Procedure Statute of Limitations Undue Influence Laches Delay in Civil Proceedings Equitable Relief

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick McCormack (as personal representative in the estate of James McCormack deceased)

Plaintiff/respondent

Our Lady Queen Of Peace Achill House of Prayer Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

High Court Plenary Action / Application by Defendant to Dismiss Proceedings as Statute Barred And/or for Laches

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is statute-barred under the Statute of Limitations 1957
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of laches applies to bar the proceedings due to delay
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the court for undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although a significant period had elapsed since the alleged undue influence and donation, the pleadings invoked the court's equitable jurisdiction and the issue of undue influence required a trial. The court was not satisfied at this interlocutory stage that the delay was unreasonable or that the defendant would suffer such prejudice as to make it inequitable to allow the action to proceed. The application to dismiss was refused.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss proceedings refused

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue to trial