O'Brien v The Minister for Justice & Ors (Approved)

1.������ By notice of motion issued on 12th March, 2020, the defendants applied to this Court for �an order dismissing the Plaintiff�s claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and/or pursuant to Order 122, rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts�. � The plenary summons in this matter issued on 22nd October, 1991.� The proceedings are therefore almost 30 years old.

3.������ Counsel for the defendants relies also on the principle in O Domhnaill v. Merrick [1984] IR 151, in which it was established that a court might dismiss an action if there was a real risk of an unfair trial or an unjust result.� In reality, this is a factor taken into account in assessing the � balance of justice � under the Primor test, and it is clear from a number of decisions of the Superior Courts that, once inordinate and inexcusable delay has been established, a relatively modest level of prejudice may suffice to tip the balance of justice in favour of dismissal.

4.������ As the consideration of whether the delay is inordinate and inexcusable, and whether the balance of justice favours dismissal, is dependent on the facts of the matter, it is necessary to set out the background to the application in some detail.

5.������ The main substantive reliefs sought in the general endorsement of claim on the plenary summons are as follows: -

�1.���� A declaration that the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff by the Minister for Justice from the Prison Service on or about the 2nd of June, 1989 was and is invalid and void.