Hughes v. Moy Contractors Ltd. [1999] IEHC 244 (29th July, 1999)

Hughes v. Moy Contractors Ltd. [1999] IEHC 244 (29th July, 1999)

The Plaintiff's delay from cause of action to delivery of Statement of Claim was inordinate and inexcusable, depriving Defendants of essential evidence and gravely prejudicing their ability to defend, making a fair trial impossible.

Citation
[1999] IEHC 244
Parties
Plaintiff: Frank Hughes; First Defendant: Moy Contractors Ltd.; Second Defendant: Second Defendant (manufacturing company at Shannon Airport); Third Defendant: Third Defendant (consulting engineers)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Plenary Summons / Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Claim against second and third Defendants dismissed for want of prosecution.
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Prejudice to Fair Trial, Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit, Conversion
Civil Procedure Contract Law Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Prejudice to Fair Trial Breach of Contract Quantum Meruit Conversion

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

Parties

Frank Hughes

Plaintiff

Moy Contractors Ltd.

First Defendant

Second Defendant (manufacturing company at Shannon Airport)

Second Defendant

Third Defendant (consulting engineers)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Summons / Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether the delay prejudiced the Defendants' ability to have a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff's delay from cause of action to delivery of Statement of Claim was inordinate and inexcusable, depriving Defendants of essential evidence and gravely prejudicing their ability to defend, making a fair trial impossible.

Court Disposition

Claim against second and third Defendants dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • Costs of motion and action to be paid by Plaintiff and taxed in default of agreement.
  • Stay on order for costs on usual terms.