Murphy & anor -v- Murphy & ors [2015] IEHC 449 (19 June 2015)

Murphy & anor -v- Murphy & ors [2015] IEHC 449 (19 June 2015)

Although there was inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting the proceedings, the balance of justice favours allowing the claims to proceed as no specific prejudice to the defendants was established and the main issues are legal rather than factual. The application to strike out or dismiss is refused. The application to consolidate the proceedings is granted.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 449
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Murphy; Plaintiff: Patrick Murphy; Defendant: Colm C Murphy; Defendant: Yvonne Murphy; Defendant: James Binchy; Defendant: Tom O Grady; Defendant: Patrick J Cadell; Defendant: Deirdre Lyons
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out/dismiss for Want of Prosecution and Application to Consolidate Proceedings
Outcome
Applications to strike out or dismiss both sets of proceedings refused; application to consolidate proceedings granted.
Legal Topics
Striking Out for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Litigation, Professional Negligence by Solicitors, Probate and Construction of Wills, Issue Estoppel, Statute of Limitations
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Probate Striking Out for Want of Prosecution Delay in Litigation Professional Negligence by Solicitors Probate and Construction of Wills Issue Estoppel +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Murphy

Plaintiff

Patrick Murphy

Plaintiff

Colm C Murphy

Defendant

Yvonne Murphy

Defendant

James Binchy

Defendant

Tom O Grady

Defendant

Patrick J Cadell

Defendant

Deirdre Lyons

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out/dismiss for Want of Prosecution and Application to Consolidate Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be struck out or dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether the two sets of proceedings should be consolidated
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claims are statute barred or estopped

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting the proceedings, the balance of justice favours allowing the claims to proceed as no specific prejudice to the defendants was established and the main issues are legal rather than factual. The application to strike out or dismiss is refused. The application to consolidate the proceedings is granted.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out or dismiss both sets of proceedings refused; application to consolidate proceedings granted.

Orders

  • Refusal to strike out or dismiss both sets of proceedings for want of prosecution.
  • Order consolidating both sets of proceedings under Order 49 Rule 1, without prejudice to defendants' rights to raise any defence.