ACE Autobody Ltd v Motorpark Ltd & Ors (Approved) [2026] IESC 18 (23 March 2026)

ACE Autobody Ltd v Motorpark Ltd & Ors (Approved) [2026] IESC 18 (23 March 2026)

The appeal was dismissed because the delay between December 2013 and August 2018 was excessive and inexcusable, justifying dismissal of the proceedings. The stricter Primor test was applied. Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal were awarded to the defendants, but no order for costs was made in the Supreme Court due to the public interest dimension.

Citation
[2026] IESC 18
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Brendan Kirwan; Defendant/respondent: Marguerite Connors trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: MJ O'Connor Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: Eamonn Buttle; Defendant/respondent: Filbeck Limited; Defendant/respondent: Norman Buttle; Defendant/respondent: Mary Buttle; Defendant/respondent: Hilary Buttle; Defendant/respondent: John O'Leary trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors; Defendant/respondent: Brid O'Leary trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors; Notice Party/amicus Curiae: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Ruling on Costs After Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs orders affirmed for lower courts; no order as to costs in Supreme Court; no order as to costs for Attorney General.
Legal Topics
Inordinate Delay, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Costs, Public Interest Litigation
Civil Procedure Inordinate Delay Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Costs Public Interest Litigation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan Kirwan

Plaintiff/appellant

Marguerite Connors trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

MJ O'Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Eamonn Buttle

Defendant/respondent

Filbeck Limited

Defendant/respondent

Norman Buttle

Defendant/respondent

Mary Buttle

Defendant/respondent

Hilary Buttle

Defendant/respondent

John O'Leary trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Brid O'Leary trading under the style of MJ O'Connor Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Attorney General

Notice Party/amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Ruling on Costs After Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against the appellant after dismissal of appeal
  3. 3 Whether public interest element affects costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the delay between December 2013 and August 2018 was excessive and inexcusable, justifying dismissal of the proceedings. The stricter Primor test was applied. Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal were awarded to the defendants, but no order for costs was made in the Supreme Court due to the public interest dimension.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs orders affirmed for lower courts; no order as to costs in Supreme Court; no order as to costs for Attorney General.

Orders

  • Costs in High Court and Court of Appeal awarded to both sets of defendants against Mr. Kirwan.
  • No order as to costs in the Supreme Court.