Flynn -v- The Minister for Justice & Ors [2017] IECA 178 (31 May 2017)

Flynn -v- The Minister for Justice & Ors [2017] IECA 178 (31 May 2017)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant was guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay, and no weighty countervailing circumstances were established to justify allowing the claim to proceed. The balance of justice, considering the nature of the claim, the absence of culpable acquiescence by respondents, and the moderate prejudice caused by delay, favoured dismissal.

Citation
[2017] IECA 178
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Brian Flynn; Defendant/respondent: The Minister for Justice; Defendant/respondent: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Defendant/respondent: Ireland; Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Want of Prosecution, Balance of Justice, Acquiescence, Prejudice, Constitutional Rights, False Imprisonment, Assault
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Want of Prosecution Balance of Justice Acquiescence Prejudice Constitutional Rights +2 more

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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Flynn

Plaintiff/appellant

The Minister for Justice

Defendant/respondent

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Defendant/respondent

Ireland

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in dismissing proceedings for inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether the balance of justice favoured allowing the claim to proceed despite delay
  3. 3 Whether respondents acquiesced in the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant was guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay, and no weighty countervailing circumstances were established to justify allowing the claim to proceed. The balance of justice, considering the nature of the claim, the absence of culpable acquiescence by respondents, and the moderate prejudice caused by delay, favoured dismissal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay
  • No interference with High Court decision