O'Connor v. John Player and Sons Ltd. & Ors [2004] IEHC 99 (12 March 2004)

O'Connor v. John Player and Sons Ltd. & Ors [2004] IEHC 99 (12 March 2004)

The plaintiff was guilty of both inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting her claim, and the balance of justice, including presumed prejudice to the defendants and lack of meaningful progress in the case, required dismissal of the action for want of prosecution.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 99
Parties
Plaintiff: Eileen O'Connor; First Defendant: John Player and Sons Ltd.; Second Defendant: Rothmans of Pall Mall (Ireland) Ltd.; Third Defendant: Benson and Hedges (Dublin) Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Orders of the Master of the High Court Dismissing Plaintiff's Claim for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff's claim remains dismissed for want of prosecution.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Litigation, Personal Injury, Tobacco Litigation
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Litigation Personal Injury Tobacco Litigation

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eileen O'Connor

Plaintiff

John Player and Sons Ltd.

First Defendant

Rothmans of Pall Mall (Ireland) Ltd.

Second Defendant

Benson and Hedges (Dublin) Ltd.

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Orders of the Master of the High Court Dismissing Plaintiff's Claim for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's delay in prosecuting her claim was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice required dismissal of the action for want of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was guilty of both inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting her claim, and the balance of justice, including presumed prejudice to the defendants and lack of meaningful progress in the case, required dismissal of the action for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; plaintiff's claim remains dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's appeal against the Master's orders is dismissed.
  • Plaintiff's claim against the defendants remains dismissed for want of prosecution.