Whearty v. Agriculture Credit Corporation Ltd. [1997] IEHC 154 (1st October, 1997)
Although the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the Defendants' own inaction and failure to seek to strike out the proceedings or compel replies to particulars weakened their claim of prejudice. The balance of justice favoured reinstatement of the proceedings.
- Citation
- [1997] IEHC 154
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant; Defendant: Third Defendant
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Procedural Posture
- Motion to Re Enter Proceedings / Application to Reinstate Action After Strike Out for Non Attendance
- Outcome
- Proceedings reinstated
- Legal Topics
- Delay in Prosecution, Reinstatement of Struck Out Proceedings, Discretion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff
First Defendant
Defendant
Second Defendant
Defendant
Third Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Motion to Re Enter Proceedings / Application to Reinstate Action After Strike Out for Non Attendance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the delay in prosecuting the action was inordinate and inexcusable
- 2 Whether the balance of justice favours reinstatement of the proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
Although the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the Defendants' own inaction and failure to seek to strike out the proceedings or compel replies to particulars weakened their claim of prejudice. The balance of justice favoured reinstatement of the proceedings.
Court Disposition
Proceedings reinstated
Orders
- Order that the proceedings be re-entered
- Liberty to Plaintiffs to serve Notice of Intention to proceed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment