Gilroy & anor v O'Leary & anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 6 (24 January 2025)

Gilroy & anor v O'Leary & anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 6 (24 January 2025)

Although the Plaintiffs were guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay, the Defendant was also responsible for significant periods of delay and did not establish specific prejudice that would make a fair trial impossible. The balance of justice did not support dismissal or discharge of the interlocutory injunction...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: Luke Charleton; Plaintiff: Michael Cotter; Defendant: Gerard Scriven
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution And/or Strike Out for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Want of Prosecution, Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Receivership, Interlocutory Injunctions, Mortgage Enforcement
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking Law Want of Prosecution Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Receivership Interlocutory Injunctions Mortgage Enforcement

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Luke Charleton

Plaintiff

Michael Cotter

Plaintiff

Gerard Scriven

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution And/or Strike Out for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether the interlocutory injunction should be discharged due to delay

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Plaintiffs were guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay, the Defendant was also responsible for significant periods of delay and did not establish specific prejudice that would make a fair trial impossible. The balance of justice did not support dismissal or discharge of the interlocutory injunction at this stage, but further delay by the Plaintiffs would risk such remedies.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution is refused
  • Application to strike out proceedings for inordinate and inexcusable delay is refused