Goode Concrete v Cement Roadstone Holdings PLC and Ors (Approved) [2026] IEHC 11 (13 January 2026)

Goode Concrete v Cement Roadstone Holdings PLC and Ors (Approved) [2026] IEHC 11 (13 January 2026)

The proceedings were struck out because the plaintiff failed to pay adjudicated costs despite repeated opportunities, provided no credible evidence of a realistic payment plan, and conducted the litigation in a vexatious and abusive manner. The court's inherent jurisdiction and relevant procedural rules justified strike-out, and neither EU law nor constitutional rights precluded this outcome in the circumstances.

Citation
[2026] IEHC 11
Parties
Plaintiff: Goode Concrete; Defendant: CRH plc; Defendant: Roadstone Wood Limited; Defendant: Kilsaran Concrete
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings (competition Law) / Application to Strike Out for Abuse of Process And/or Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Proceedings struck out for abuse of process and want of prosecution.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Want of Prosecution, Non Payment of Costs Orders, Strike Out Applications, EU Competition Law, Right of Access to Courts
Civil Procedure Competition Law Abuse of Process Want of Prosecution Non Payment of Costs Orders Strike Out Applications EU Competition Law Right of Access to Courts

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 5 Authorities cited 41 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goode Concrete

Plaintiff

CRH plc

Defendant

Roadstone Wood Limited

Defendant

Kilsaran Concrete

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings (competition Law) / Application to Strike Out for Abuse of Process And/or Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be struck out for abuse of process due to non-payment of adjudicated costs
  2. 2 Whether want of prosecution justifies dismissal
  3. 3 Whether EU law or constitutional rights preclude strike-out for non-payment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were struck out because the plaintiff failed to pay adjudicated costs despite repeated opportunities, provided no credible evidence of a realistic payment plan, and conducted the litigation in a vexatious and abusive manner. The court's inherent jurisdiction and relevant procedural rules justified strike-out, and neither EU law nor constitutional rights precluded this outcome in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Proceedings struck out for abuse of process and want of prosecution.

Orders

  • Proceedings struck out in their entirety.
  • Court to hear parties as to costs of the strike-out applications.