Kilcoyne -v- Minister for Defence & ors [2014] IESC 10 (26 February 2014)

Kilcoyne -v- Minister for Defence & ors [2014] IESC 10 (26 February 2014)

The appellant was personally responsible for an inordinate and inexcusable delay of almost nine years in prosecuting the proceedings, and no good reason was shown to justify allowing the claim to proceed. The balance of justice required dismissal of the action.

Citation
[2014] IESC 10
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Patrick Joseph Kilcoyne; Defendants/respondents: Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Action for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Balance of Justice, Army Deafness Claims
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Balance of Justice Army Deafness Claims

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

Patrick Joseph Kilcoyne

Plaintiff/appellant

Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Action for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecuting the proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice required dismissal of the action

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was personally responsible for an inordinate and inexcusable delay of almost nine years in prosecuting the proceedings, and no good reason was shown to justify allowing the claim to proceed. The balance of justice required dismissal of the action.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the High Court dismissing the action for want of prosecution affirmed