Doherty -v- Ryan [2015] IEHC 242 (17 April 2015)

Doherty -v- Ryan [2015] IEHC 242 (17 April 2015)

Although the plaintiff was responsible for inordinate and inexcusable delay, the defendant also contributed to delays and acquiesced; no actual prejudice to the defendant was established, so the interests of justice require the plaintiff be permitted to proceed.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 242
Parties
Plaintiff: Mary Doherty; Defendant: David Ryan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Plenary Summons / Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Want of Prosecution, Qualified Privilege, Case Management
Civil Procedure Defamation Delay in Prosecution Want of Prosecution Qualified Privilege Case Management

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Doherty

Plaintiff

David Ryan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Summons / Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether the defendant suffered actual prejudice due to delay
  3. 3 Whether both parties' conduct constitutes acquiescence or active delay

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff was responsible for inordinate and inexcusable delay, the defendant also contributed to delays and acquiesced; no actual prejudice to the defendant was established, so the interests of justice require the plaintiff be permitted to proceed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff permitted to proceed with claim
  • Court to discuss with counsel a time scale for trial and undertake case management measures