MacH. (J.) v. M. (J.) & Ors [2004] IEHC 32 (3 March 2004)

MacH. (J.) v. M. (J.) & Ors [2004] IEHC 32 (3 March 2004)

The delay in instituting proceedings was inordinate but excusable due to the plaintiff's psychological condition. The balance of justice does not favour dismissal of the claim against the third named defendant, as the prejudice to the applicant is not sufficient to outweigh the prejudice to the plaintiff if her claim were dismissed. However, the claim of fraudulent concealment is struck out for want of particularity.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 32
Parties
Plaintiff: J MacH; First Named Defendant: J M; Second Named Defendant: The Minister for Education and Science; Third Named Defendant (applicant): T F; Fourth and Fifth Named Defendants: Ireland and The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application to Dismiss/strike Out Claim for Delay and Lack of Particularity
Outcome
Application to dismiss plaintiff's claim against third named defendant refused; claim of fraudulent concealment struck out.
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Vicarious Liability, Fraudulent Concealment, Abuse of Process, Fair Trial Rights
Tort Law Civil Procedure Education Law Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Vicarious Liability Fraudulent Concealment Abuse of Process Fair Trial Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J MacH

Plaintiff

J M

First Named Defendant

The Minister for Education and Science

Second Named Defendant

T F

Third Named Defendant (applicant)

Ireland and The Attorney General

Fourth and Fifth Named Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application to Dismiss/strike Out Claim for Delay and Lack of Particularity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the third named defendant should be dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether the claim of fraudulent concealment should be struck out for want of particularity
  3. 3 Whether the balance of justice requires dismissal of the claim despite excusable delay

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in instituting proceedings was inordinate but excusable due to the plaintiff's psychological condition. The balance of justice does not favour dismissal of the claim against the third named defendant, as the prejudice to the applicant is not sufficient to outweigh the prejudice to the plaintiff if her claim were dismissed. However, the claim of fraudulent concealment is struck out for want of particularity.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss plaintiff's claim against third named defendant refused; claim of fraudulent concealment struck out.

Orders

  • Refusal to dismiss plaintiff's claim against third named defendant for delay
  • Striking out of claim of fraudulent concealment against third named defendant