Gaffney & Anor -v- The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana & Ors [2017] IECA 52 (27 February 2017)

Gaffney & Anor -v- The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana & Ors [2017] IECA 52 (27 February 2017)

Although the delay by the plaintiffs was inordinate and inexcusable, the absence of specific prejudice to the defendants, the existence of prior criminal trials covering the same facts, and the overall delay being less than in comparable cases meant the balance of justice favoured allowing the proceedings to continue. The third limb of the Primor test was not satisfied for strike out.

Citation
[2017] IECA 52
Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: Fidelma Gaffney; Plaintiff / Appellant: Owen Gaffney; Defendant / Respondent: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Defendant / Respondent: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Defendant / Respondent: Ireland; Defendant / Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings for Want of Prosecution Due to Delay
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Undue Delay, Strike Out Applications, Right to Fair Trial, Balance of Justice, Access to Courts
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Tort Law Undue Delay Strike Out Applications Right to Fair Trial Balance of Justice Access to Courts

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fidelma Gaffney

Plaintiff / Appellant

Owen Gaffney

Plaintiff / Appellant

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Defendant / Respondent

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Defendant / Respondent

Ireland

Defendant / Respondent

The Attorney General

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings for Want of Prosecution Due to Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecuting the civil proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice required the proceedings to be struck out for want of prosecution
  3. 3 Whether the absence of specific prejudice to the defendants justified allowing the proceedings to continue

Ratio Decidendi

Although the delay by the plaintiffs was inordinate and inexcusable, the absence of specific prejudice to the defendants, the existence of prior criminal trials covering the same facts, and the overall delay being less than in comparable cases meant the balance of justice favoured allowing the proceedings to continue. The third limb of the Primor test was not satisfied for strike out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs must serve a notice of intention to proceed within two weeks of the order.
  • Within one month after service of notice, plaintiffs must issue and serve a motion for directions for early trial and case management within a further month.