Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES Both sides agree that the legal principles which I have to apply on an application of this sort, involving as it does for the most part delay which has taken place subsequent to the commencement of proceedings, are those set out by the Supreme Court in its decision in Primor PLC v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley (1996) 2 IR 459.
That case affirmed that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to control its own procedure and to dismiss a claim when the interests of justice require it to do so.
The decision held that a party seeking an order of the type with which I am concerned must demonstrate that the delay complained of was both inordinate and inexcusable. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff in the present proceedings very sensibly accepts that the delay in this case was both inordinate and inexcusable.
That being so I have to concern myself with the third part of the Primor test which was formulated by the Supreme Court in the following terms:-
CONCLUSION In the light of the foregoing I dismiss the first two parts of the plaintiff's claim but will permit the third part relating to the allegation of the sale of the lands to his brother at an undervalue to proceed to trial.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.