Howley v S & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 289 (22 May 2025)

Howley v S & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 289 (22 May 2025)

The delay in progressing the debt collection proceedings was justified by the existence of parallel proceedings before the Tax Appeals Commission and Court of Appeal, which are the proper forum for determining the admissibility and validity of the tax appeals. There was no inexcusable delay, and no prejudice to the defendants was established. The application to strike out is refused.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 289
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Howley; Defendants: S & Ors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Summary Summons Debt Collection / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application to strike out refused
Legal Topics
Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Litigation, Tax Assessment Appeals, Summary Summons Proceedings
Civil Procedure Tax Law Strike Out for Want of Prosecution Delay in Litigation Tax Assessment Appeals Summary Summons Proceedings

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Howley

Plaintiff

S & Ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Summary Summons Debt Collection / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debt collection proceedings should be struck out for want of prosecution under Order 122, rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether delay in progressing the proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable
  3. 3 Whether the balance of justice favours dismissal of the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in progressing the debt collection proceedings was justified by the existence of parallel proceedings before the Tax Appeals Commission and Court of Appeal, which are the proper forum for determining the admissibility and validity of the tax appeals. There was no inexcusable delay, and no prejudice to the defendants was established. The application to strike out is refused.

Court Disposition

application to strike out refused

Orders

  • Plaintiff entitled to recover costs of each individual motion against respective defendant unless defendants apply for a different costs order within fourteen days