Campion & Ors v South Tipperary County Council (Approved) [2024] IECA 301 (19 December 2024)

Campion & Ors v South Tipperary County Council (Approved) [2024] IECA 301 (19 December 2024)

The evidence of prejudice advanced by the defendant was too general and insufficient to justify the extreme step of striking out the proceedings; existence of District Court transcripts and ongoing requests for particulars of loss indicated no real and tangible injustice would result from allowing the claim to proceed.

Citation
[2024] IECA 301
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Liam Campion; Plaintiff/appellant: Josephine Campion; Plaintiff/appellant: Campion Concrete Products Limited; Plaintiff/appellant: Voran House Limited; Defendant/respondent: South Tipperary County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings for Delay
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Striking Out Proceedings, Prejudice to Defendant, Case Management, Misfeasance in Public Office, Legitimate Expectation, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Defamation, Malicious Falsehood, Constitutional Rights
Civil Procedure Public Law Contract Law Defamation Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Striking Out Proceedings Prejudice to Defendant Case Management +6 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liam Campion

Plaintiff/appellant

Josephine Campion

Plaintiff/appellant

Campion Concrete Products Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Voran House Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

South Tipperary County Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings for Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether general prejudice to the defendant justifies dismissal
  3. 3 Adequacy of evidence of prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of prejudice advanced by the defendant was too general and insufficient to justify the extreme step of striking out the proceedings; existence of District Court transcripts and ongoing requests for particulars of loss indicated no real and tangible injustice would result from allowing the claim to proceed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to High Court Non-Jury List for case management directions
  • Plaintiffs to deliver witness statements and engage in expert meetings