Mannion -v- Bergin & Ors practicing as O'Connor and Bergin Solicitors [2009] IEHC 165 (13 March 2009)

The delay by the plaintiff was both inordinate and inexcusable, with no defensible grounds provided. The balance of justice, including the defendants' right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 ECHR, required dismissal of the proceedings.

Citation: [2009] IEHC 165
Parties: Plaintiff: Henry Mannion; Defendants: David Bergin, Mark M. Bergin and Catherin Bradley practising as O’Connor and Bergin, Solicitors
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Judgment Date: 13 March 2009
Procedural Posture: Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution / High Court Judgment on Motion to Dismiss
Outcome: Proceedings dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay and want of prosecution.
Legal Topics: Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Want of Prosecution, Right to Trial Within Reasonable Time, Article 6 ECHR

Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Want of Prosecution Right to Trial Within Reasonable Time Article 6 ECHR

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2

Parties

Henry Mannion

Plaintiff

David Bergin, Mark M. Bergin and Catherin Bradley practising as O’Connor and Bergin, Solicitors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution / High Court Judgment on Motion to Dismiss

Legal Issues

1 Whether the proceedings should be dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay and want of prosecution
2 Whether the balance of justice requires dismissal of the action

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay and want of prosecution.

Orders

Order dismissing the proceedings on the grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay and want of prosecution.