McAteer as Personal Representative of the late Hugh McFadden Deceased & anor v The Tanyard Development Company & anor (Approved) [2026] IECA 38 (09 March 2026)

McAteer as Personal Representative of the late Hugh McFadden Deceased & anor v The Tanyard Development Company & anor (Approved) [2026] IECA 38 (09 March 2026)

Despite inordinate and inexcusable delay, the exceptional nature of the allegations, the undisputed facts regarding conflict of interest and fiduciary breach, lack of demonstrated specific prejudice to the appellants, and their refusal to engage in mediation, mean the balance of justice favours allowing the proceedings to continue. The appeal is dismissed and the High Court's refusal to strike out the proceedings is upheld.

Citation
[2026] IECA 38
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondent: Aine McAteer as Personal Representative of the late Hugh McFadden Deceased and Margaret McFadden; Defendant/appellant: The Tanyard Development Company; Defendant/appellant: Seamus Gunn
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Refusal to Strike Out Proceedings for Delay
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Fiduciary Duty, Conflict of Interest, Conveyancing, Undue Influence
Civil Procedure Property Law Professional Conduct Delay in Prosecution Strike Out for Want of Prosecution Fiduciary Duty Conflict of Interest Conveyancing +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aine McAteer as Personal Representative of the late Hugh McFadden Deceased and Margaret McFadden

Plaintiffs/respondent

The Tanyard Development Company

Defendant/appellant

Seamus Gunn

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Refusal to Strike Out Proceedings for Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice requires dismissal of the claim
  3. 3 Whether the nature of the case and conduct of the parties affect the balance of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Despite inordinate and inexcusable delay, the exceptional nature of the allegations, the undisputed facts regarding conflict of interest and fiduciary breach, lack of demonstrated specific prejudice to the appellants, and their refusal to engage in mediation, mean the balance of justice favours allowing the proceedings to continue. The appeal is dismissed and the High Court's refusal to strike out the proceedings is upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; proceedings not struck out; High Court order refusing strike out affirmed