Kirwan v Connors & ors (Approved) [2025] IESC 21 (30 May 2025)

Kirwan v Connors & ors (Approved) [2025] IESC 21 (30 May 2025)

The Supreme Court held that the power to dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution is exclusively governed by Order 122 Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which requires two years of procedural inactivity before a defendant may apply for dismissal. The inherent jurisdiction does not permit dismissal for want of prosecution outside the conditions set by the Rule. The test in Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley is overruled to the extent it is inconsistent with this approach.

Citation
[2025] IESC 21
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Brendan Kirwan; Defendant/respondent: Marguerite Connors trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: MJ O'Connor Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: Eamonn Buttle; Defendant/respondent: Filbeck Limited; Defendant/respondent: Norman Buttle; Defendant/respondent: Mary Buttle; Defendant/respondent: Hilary Buttle; Defendant/respondent: John O'Leary trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: Brid O'Leary trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Procedural Delay, Inherent Jurisdiction, Rules of the Superior Courts, Overruling of Precedent
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Procedural Delay Inherent Jurisdiction Rules of the Superior Courts Overruling of Precedent

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan Kirwan

Applicant/appellant

Marguerite Connors trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

MJ O'Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Eamonn Buttle

Defendant/respondent

Filbeck Limited

Defendant/respondent

Norman Buttle

Defendant/respondent

Mary Buttle

Defendant/respondent

Hilary Buttle

Defendant/respondent

John O'Leary trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Brid O'Leary trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the power to dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution is rooted in the inherent jurisdiction of the court or exclusively in Order 122 Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether the test in Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley remains good law or should be overruled
  3. 3 What criteria govern the exercise of the court's discretion to dismiss for want of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the power to dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution is exclusively governed by Order 122 Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which requires two years of procedural inactivity before a defendant may apply for dismissal. The inherent jurisdiction does not permit dismissal for want of prosecution outside the conditions set by the Rule. The test in Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley is overruled to the extent it is inconsistent with this approach.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The proceedings are dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 122 Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
  • The test in Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley is overruled.