Desmond v Doyle and others [2013] IESC 59 (17 December 2013)

Desmond v Doyle and others [2013] IESC 59 (17 December 2013)

Although the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable, the defendants failed to establish any real prejudice affecting their ability to defend the actions or advance their mitigation pleas. The balance of justice did not require dismissal, as a fair trial remained possible and dismissal would inflict a greater injustice on the plaintiff.

Citation
[2013] IESC 59
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Dermot Desmond; Defendant/appellant: Tom Doyle; Defendant/appellant: Times Newspapers Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Rory Godson; Defendant/appellant: John Burns
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing to Dismiss Proceedings for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Want of Prosecution, Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Balance of Justice, Qualified Privilege, Mitigation of Damages, Libel
Civil Procedure Defamation Want of Prosecution Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Balance of Justice Qualified Privilege Mitigation of Damages Libel

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dermot Desmond

Plaintiff/respondent

Tom Doyle

Defendant/appellant

Times Newspapers Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Rory Godson

Defendant/appellant

John Burns

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing to Dismiss Proceedings for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecuting the libel actions was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice required dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

Although the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable, the defendants failed to establish any real prejudice affecting their ability to defend the actions or advance their mitigation pleas. The balance of justice did not require dismissal, as a fair trial remained possible and dismissal would inflict a greater injustice on the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order affirmed permitting the actions to proceed, including the condition that costs liability falls on the plaintiff from 7 April 2000.