Hayes -v- Mc Donnell & Ors [2011] IEHC 530 (15 December 2011)

Hayes -v- Mc Donnell & Ors [2011] IEHC 530 (15 December 2011)

The delay in prosecuting the claim, though inordinate, is excused due to the plaintiff's psychiatric condition and involvement in redress processes. The prejudice to the defendants, while real, does not outweigh the prejudice to the plaintiff if the claim is dismissed. The balance of justice favours allowing the claim to proceed. The court's inherent jurisdiction and Article 6 ECHR do not require dismissal in these circumstances.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 530
Parties
Plaintiff: Tom Hayes; Defendant: Anthony McDonnell; Defendant: Collette Cullinane; Defendant: The Minister for Education and Science; Defendant: The Minister for Health and Children; Defendant: Ireland; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injuries/institutional Abuse) / Ruling on Preliminary Application to Dismiss for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay
Outcome
Application to dismiss for inordinate and inexcusable delay refused; claim to proceed.
Legal Topics
Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Want of Prosecution, Institutional Abuse, Vicarious Liability, Statute of Limitations, Inherent Jurisdiction, Prejudice to Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay Want of Prosecution Institutional Abuse Vicarious Liability Statute of Limitations +3 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom Hayes

Plaintiff

Anthony McDonnell

Defendant

Collette Cullinane

Defendant

The Minister for Education and Science

Defendant

The Minister for Health and Children

Defendant

Ireland

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injuries/institutional Abuse) / Ruling on Preliminary Application to Dismiss for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the claim is inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether the delay prejudices the defendants' ability to defend the claim
  3. 3 Whether the balance of justice requires dismissal of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in prosecuting the claim, though inordinate, is excused due to the plaintiff's psychiatric condition and involvement in redress processes. The prejudice to the defendants, while real, does not outweigh the prejudice to the plaintiff if the claim is dismissed. The balance of justice favours allowing the claim to proceed. The court's inherent jurisdiction and Article 6 ECHR do not require dismissal in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss for inordinate and inexcusable delay refused; claim to proceed.

Orders

  • Defendants' application to strike out or dismiss the plaintiff’s claim is refused.
  • Proceedings to continue to trial.