D v D (Approved) [2025] IEHC 434 (18 July 2025)

D v D (Approved) [2025] IEHC 434 (18 July 2025)

The defendant failed to establish that, notwithstanding the passage of time and loss of some evidence, he could not receive a fair trial. The existence of a potential witness (plaintiff's sister), the possibility of discovery of relevant records, and the lack of evidence that the delay was solely attributable to the defendant's wrongdoing meant the high threshold for striking out was not met. The court refused to strike out the proceedings and ordered costs in favour of the plaintiff.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 434
Parties
Plaintiff: D; Defendant: D
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort Assault/sexual Abuse) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Proceedings for Delay/prejudice
Outcome
Application to strike out refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Delay in Civil Proceedings, Fair Trial Rights, Striking Out Proceedings, Limitation and Impairment
Civil Procedure Tort Law Sexual Assault Delay in Civil Proceedings Fair Trial Rights Striking Out Proceedings Limitation and Impairment

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D

Plaintiff

D

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort Assault/sexual Abuse) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Proceedings for Delay/prejudice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be struck out due to pre-commencement delay rendering a fair trial impossible
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is prejudiced in his defence due to the passage of time and loss of evidence/witnesses
  3. 3 Whether the delay was caused by impairment resulting from the alleged abuse

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to establish that, notwithstanding the passage of time and loss of some evidence, he could not receive a fair trial. The existence of a potential witness (plaintiff's sister), the possibility of discovery of relevant records, and the lack of evidence that the delay was solely attributable to the defendant's wrongdoing meant the high threshold for striking out was not met. The court refused to strike out the proceedings and ordered costs in favour of the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused

Orders

  • Reliefs sought by the defendant in the notice of motion dated 29 February 2024 refused
  • Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant, to be adjudicated in default of agreement, with a stay on execution pending final determination