Mullen v O'Brien & Anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 302 (28 May 2025)

Mullen v O'Brien & Anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 302 (28 May 2025)

The plaintiff's delay between April 2021 and October 2023 was inordinate and inexcusable, but the first defendant failed to prove sufficient prejudice to justify strike out under Primor. Pre-commencement delay, even if substantial, cannot be relied upon by the defendant where alleged disability was caused by the defendant's wrongdoing, per Beatty. The application for trial of a preliminary issue is refused as facts are not agreed and the issue is best left to full trial. The first defendant is ordered to reply to the plaintiff's notice for particulars.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 302
Parties
Plaintiff: Karl Mullen; First Defendant: Tim O'Brien; Second Defendant: Scouting Ireland Services
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Plenary Civil Action / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
First defendant's applications to strike out and for trial of preliminary issue refused; pre-commencement delay application adjourned to trial; plaintiff's motion to compel replies to particulars granted.
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Statute of Limitations, Strike Out Applications, Preliminary Issues, Discovery, Fair Trial Rights
Civil Litigation Personal Injury Sexual Abuse Limitation Law Delay in Prosecution Statute of Limitations Strike Out Applications Preliminary Issues +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karl Mullen

Plaintiff

Tim O'Brien

First Defendant

Scouting Ireland Services

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Civil Action / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the proceedings be struck out for want of prosecution or delay?
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff's claim statute barred under the Statute of Limitations?
  3. 3 Should a preliminary issue be tried regarding limitation?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's delay between April 2021 and October 2023 was inordinate and inexcusable, but the first defendant failed to prove sufficient prejudice to justify strike out under Primor. Pre-commencement delay, even if substantial, cannot be relied upon by the defendant where alleged disability was caused by the defendant's wrongdoing, per Beatty. The application for trial of a preliminary issue is refused as facts are not agreed and the issue is best left to full trial. The first defendant is ordered to reply to the plaintiff's notice for particulars.

Court Disposition

First defendant's applications to strike out and for trial of preliminary issue refused; pre-commencement delay application adjourned to trial; plaintiff's motion to compel replies to particulars granted.

Orders

  • First defendant to furnish replies to plaintiff's notice for particulars.
  • Matter adjourned for further directions in Non-Jury/Judicial Review list.