Krjiwizki & Anor v Minister For Justice and Equality (Approved) [2024] IECA 283 (15 October 2024)

Krjiwizki & Anor v Minister For Justice and Equality (Approved) [2024] IECA 283 (15 October 2024)

Applicants failed to satisfy the Eire Continental test for extension of time: no bona fide intention to appeal within permitted time, no credible mistake, and no arguable ground of appeal. The High Court judge correctly exercised inherent jurisdiction to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process, and the claims were either not the responsibility of the respondent, statute-barred, or lacked credible basis.

Citation
[2024] IECA 283
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Vladamir Krjiwizki; Appellant/plaintiff: Zoya Krjiwizki; Respondent/defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Extend Time for Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Statute of Limitations, Costs
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Extension of Time Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Statute of Limitations Costs

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vladamir Krjiwizki

Appellant/plaintiff

Zoya Krjiwizki

Appellant/plaintiff

Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Extend Time for Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants are entitled to an extension of time to appeal High Court order
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings disclosed any reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the claims were statute-barred or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to satisfy the Eire Continental test for extension of time: no bona fide intention to appeal within permitted time, no credible mistake, and no arguable ground of appeal. The High Court judge correctly exercised inherent jurisdiction to strike out the proceedings as an abuse of process, and the claims were either not the responsibility of the respondent, statute-barred, or lacked credible basis.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • application for extension of time refused
  • costs awarded to respondent