Plaintiffs who do not progress their case can very often run the risk of their case being struck out as result of an inexcusable delay.
proved, namely 1) the delay had to be inordinate 2) the delay had to be inexcusable 3)that the balance of justice favoured the granting of a dismissal of the case if the Defendant could show that he/she was prejudiced by the delay.
The principles in relation to delay are set out in the case of Primor PLC v SKC 1996. In this case the Court said that there were
three factors that need to be
In a recent High Court case the Defendant argued that they were unable to rely on an indemnity they had previously received from a guarantor due to a delay in prosecuting the claim in circumstances whereby the time the claim came to be heard the Guarantee/Indemnity could not be relied upon by the Defendant because the guarantor had entered into a personal insolvency arrangement. However, the Court felt that the balance of justice did not favour reliance on the delay by reason of the fact that the Defendant did not show how they had been prejudiced by the delay.
Steps have now been taken under he Court proceedings (delays) Act 2024, which have provided that parties can seek a declaration of undue delay and in certain circumstance allows a party to obtain compensation.
Proceedings can be issued for the appointment of an assessor to adjudicate whether there has been a breach to the right of a timely conclusion of proceedings.
If an assessor finds that there has been a breach of their rights, then the Court can award compensation to the aggrieved party. The appeal can be made to the High Court in relation to the decision of the Circuit Court.
There is ongoing discussion on how this Act will be fully implemented.
If you would like any more information or have questions on any litigation matter, please do not hesitate to contact Brendan Dillon or Donna Phelan on (01) 296 0666.
