McGivern v Fitzpatrick & Ors [2024] IEHC 365 (17 June 2024)

McGivern v Fitzpatrick & Ors [2024] IEHC 365 (17 June 2024)

The delay in prosecuting the action was inordinate and inexcusable; the plaintiff's health issues did not sufficiently excuse the delay; the balance of justice favours striking out the proceedings due to moderate prejudice suffered by the defendants, particularly the unreliability of witness recollection after nearly twenty years.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 365
Parties
Plaintiff: Hugh McGivern; Defendant: Ivor Fitzpatrick; Defendant: Jennifer Blundon; Defendant: Deirdre Courtney; Defendant: John King; Defendant: Ann McHale; Defendant: Dympna Murphy; Defendant: Margaret Scully; Defendant: Susan R. Stapleton; Defendant: Ivor Fitzpatrick & Company Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out / Judgment on Motion to Strike Out for Delay
Outcome
Plaintiff's action struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay; relief granted to defendants.
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Balance of Justice, Prejudice to Defendant, Professional Negligence by Solicitors
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Delay in Prosecution Strike Out for Want of Prosecution Balance of Justice Prejudice to Defendant Professional Negligence by Solicitors

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh McGivern

Plaintiff

Ivor Fitzpatrick

Defendant

Jennifer Blundon

Defendant

Deirdre Courtney

Defendant

John King

Defendant

Ann McHale

Defendant

Dympna Murphy

Defendant

Margaret Scully

Defendant

Susan R. Stapleton

Defendant

Ivor Fitzpatrick & Company Solicitors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out / Judgment on Motion to Strike Out for Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecuting the action was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice favours striking out the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether prejudice to the defendants warrants dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in prosecuting the action was inordinate and inexcusable; the plaintiff's health issues did not sufficiently excuse the delay; the balance of justice favours striking out the proceedings due to moderate prejudice suffered by the defendants, particularly the unreliability of witness recollection after nearly twenty years.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay; relief granted to defendants.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action against defendants struck out on grounds of delay.
  • Parties to furnish written submissions on final order and costs within two weeks.