Preston Grace v Bradpower Ltd & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 448 (31 July 2024)

Preston Grace v Bradpower Ltd & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 448 (31 July 2024)

The defendants failed to establish, on affidavit evidence at this interlocutory stage, that the plaintiff's date of knowledge for limitation purposes was in 2015, given the new evidence only became available in 2018-2019. The delay, while inordinate, was at least partially excusable, and the defendants did not substantiate any specific prejudice. The balance of justice favours allowing the proceedings to continue to trial.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 448
Parties
Plaintiff: Judith Preston Grace; First Defendant: Bradpower Limited; Second Defendant: Security Partners Limited; Third Defendant: Michael McDonald; Fourth Defendant: Michael Burke; Fifth Defendant: Leo Foy; Sixth Defendant: Nial Christle; Seventh Defendant: Paul Sinnott; Eighth Defendant: Ollie Finn
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Wrongful Death Civil Action / Interlocutory Application to Dismiss for Statute Bar and Inordinate/inexcusable Delay
Outcome
Defendants' applications to dismiss for statute bar and delay refused; proceedings to continue.
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Wrongful Death, Delay in Proceedings, Personal Injuries, Inquests, Evidence
Tort Law Civil Procedure Statute of Limitations Wrongful Death Delay in Proceedings Personal Injuries Inquests Evidence

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judith Preston Grace

Plaintiff

Bradpower Limited

First Defendant

Security Partners Limited

Second Defendant

Michael McDonald

Third Defendant

Michael Burke

Fourth Defendant

Leo Foy

Fifth Defendant

Nial Christle

Sixth Defendant

Paul Sinnott

Seventh Defendant

Ollie Finn

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Wrongful Death Civil Action / Interlocutory Application to Dismiss for Statute Bar and Inordinate/inexcusable Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings are statute barred under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to establish, on affidavit evidence at this interlocutory stage, that the plaintiff's date of knowledge for limitation purposes was in 2015, given the new evidence only became available in 2018-2019. The delay, while inordinate, was at least partially excusable, and the defendants did not substantiate any specific prejudice. The balance of justice favours allowing the proceedings to continue to trial.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications to dismiss for statute bar and delay refused; proceedings to continue.

Orders

  • Refusal of application to dismiss as statute barred
  • Refusal of application to dismiss for inordinate and inexcusable delay