Gilroy v Flynn

Last updated

Gilroy v Flynn
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameMark John Gilroy v Mary Flynn
Decided3 December 2004
Citation(s)[2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290
Transcript(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2004/98.html
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judges sitting Denham J, Hardiman J, Fennelly J
Case opinions
Excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim are no longer acceptable even where the fault of the delay lies with a professional adviser, and not the plaintiff.
Decision by Hardiman J
Keywords

Gilroy v Flynn[2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290 [1] was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court made it clear that excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim were unacceptable and could justify dismissing a case. [2] [3] While the court allowed the appeal against the High Court central to this case to proceed, it effectively reversed the previous "assumption that even grave delay will not lead to the dismissal of an action" [4] even where the fault of the delay lay with a legal adviser rather than the plaintiff. [5] [6]

Contents

Background

The plaintiff was involved in an accident in September 1997. She issued proceedings through her solicitor in August 2000 and served them on the defendant's solicitors in January 2001 who sought a statement of claim by letter dated 6 February 2001. Following repeated requests for the statement of claim, the defendant's solicitor filed a motion with the High Court which extended the time for delivery of the statement of claim on consent by three weeks on 30 November 2001.

The defendant's solicitor, having not received the statement of claim following several requests for it, filed a further motion to the Master of the High Court which "dismissed the plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution" [7] on 27 June 2002. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court which affirmed the order of the Master of the High Court in January 2003. The plaintiff then appealed the decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decision was delivered by Hardiman J., with Denham and Fennelly JJ. concurring, on 3 December 2004.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. However, it stressed that similar cases in the future may not be decided so favorably to the plaintiff as the present one. It stated that the Courts are increasingly unwilling to allow the possible injustice that may accrue from "dilatoriness". [8] It went on to cite developments in the law since the case of Primor plc v Stokes Kennedy Crowley. [9] Order 27 of the Rules of the Superior Courts had been amended to oblige the Court, on the hearing of second applications for dismissal of an action for a delay in delivering a statement of claim, to dismiss the action unless special circumstances exist. [10] In addition, the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 puts an obligation on the Courts to "ensure that rights and liabilities ... are determined within a reasonable time". [11]

In the circumstances, the Courts allowed the appeal and gave the plaintiff's one week to file the statement of claim. [12] However, it was clear that similar cases in the future "may not prove as easy" for "dilatory" plaintiffs. [13]

Subsequent developments

Courts have since become even more strict and are now more likely to strike out a case for inordinate and inexcusable delay. Gilroy forms the core of the decision in Stephens v Paul Flynn Ltd [2005] IEHC 148. [14] The High Court recently struck out a case for want of prosecution where the delay was less than one year. [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Palles</span> Irish judge (1831–1920)

Christopher Palles was an Irish barrister, Solicitor-General, Attorney-General and a judge for over 40 years. His biographer, Vincent Thomas Hyginus Delany, described him as "the greatest of the Irish judges". He served as the last Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer from 1874 until his retirement from the bench in 1916.

<i>Engineering Design and Management v. Burton</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton, [2016] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court considered the Irish courts' ability to limit the right of access to the courts and, in extreme cases, to dismiss proceedings.

<i>Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

<i>De Roiste v Minister for Defence</i> Irish Supreme Court case

De Róiste v Minister for Defence, [2001] 1 IR190, [2001] IESC 4; [2001] 2 ILRM 241, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the extended delay in bringing forward an action was grounds for dismissal of charges.

<i>H v H</i> Irish Supreme Court case

H v H, [2015] IESC 85, also known as JMH v KH, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the husband was found to have vexatiously abused the court process by repeatedly pursuing legal action against his former wife. An Isaac Wunder order was made by the court against the husband which states that any legal proceedings against his wife and children will be halted. However, the court did not suspend all legal action from the husband; rather it ruled that further legal action would require a decision by a relevant court. This decision is significant because the Court established guidelines for when common law principles could be reinterpreted.

<i>B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134; was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the determination of article 34.5.3° of the Constitution when the Court can grant an allowance for an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The ruling declared that the Supreme Court "is no longer a Court for the correction of error but rather a Court which has the principal constitutional task of determining issues of general importance."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ryanair p.l.c. v Aer Rianta c.p.t.</span> Irish Supreme Court case

Ryanair p.l.c. v Aer Rianta c.p.t.[2003] IESC 62; [2003] 4 IR 264 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case that dealt with the law of discovery. In his judgement, Fennelly J. reinforced the test that discovery will only be granted if the court is satisfied that the documents sought are: (i) relevant to the issues in the proceedings; and (ii) that discovery is necessary for fairly disposing of the matter and for saving costs. The court noted that in order for documents to satisfy this test the applicant does not have to prove that they are, "in any sense absolutely necessary". Rather all he has to do is prove that he would suffer a "litigious disadvantage by not seeing them". The burden of proof rests firmly on the party seeking the discovery.

<i>Goold v Collins and Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Goold v Collins and Ors [2004] IESC 38, [2004] 7 JIC 1201 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a statutory provision's constitutionality may be reviewed only at the behest of a litigant who is contesting some current application of that provision.

<i>McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 2 I.R. 117 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial under both Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate either that some specific prejudice resulted or that the delay was well outside the norm for the particular proceedings.

<i>Doherty v Reynolds and St. Jamess Hospital Board</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Doherty v Reynolds and St. James's Hospital Board [2004] IESC 42 was a case of medical negligence in which the Supreme Court of Ireland confirmed that, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where an injury would not be expected to occur without negligence in the management of something, negligence on the part of those charged with the thing's management may be presumed from the mere fact of injury.

<i>Gerald J.P. Stephens v Paul Flynn Ltd</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gerald J.P. Stephens v. Paul Flynn Ltd.[2008] IESC 4; [2008] 4 IR 31 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, absent special circumstances, a party's failure to deliver a statement of claim within a period of twenty months is inexcusable and will justify dismissal of the litigation.

<i>Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd</i> (No 6) Irish Supreme Court case

Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd [2000] IESC 15; [2000] 4 IR 412 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court considered the test for objective bias in Ireland. During this case the Supreme Court considered:

  1. whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to set aside its own previous order;
  2. whether an appellant must show real likelihood of bias or whether reasonable apprehension of bias suffices; and
  3. whether a prior relationship of legal advisor and client would disqualify a judge.
<i>H.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

H.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others, [2012] IESC 58; [2013] 1 IR 142, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):

Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law?

<i>Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise, Ireland</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise, Ireland, [2017] IESC 27; was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that third party funding to support a plaintiff's legal costs and disbursements is unlawful.

<i>Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman[2009] IESC 38; [2009] 2 ILRM 363; [2009] 3 IR 699 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the inherent jurisdiction of the court with respect of a solicitor's misconduct. The court also considered the remedies available where a solicitor is in breach of a solicitor's undertaking.

Philp v Ryan & Anor [2004] IESC 105 is an Irish tort law case concerning the actionability of the 'loss of chance' doctrine in medical negligence. Contrary to the position in England and Wales consolidated in Gregg v Scott, the Supreme Court of Ireland awarded compensation to the plaintiff for their loss of life expectancy caused by the defendant's negligence, despite the lack of proof on the balance of probabilities that Mr Philp would have otherwise recovered.

<i>Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v O.A.</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A. [2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. It was decided that parents should not get an order for costs in the District Court unless there are specific elements in the case at hand. The Supreme Court set up these specific points and ruled that the Circuit Court should only overturn District Court decisions if they do not follow the principles and criteria set out.

<i>T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2014] IESC 29; [2014] 4 IR 277 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision, where the court considered if Section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 was similar to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness under EU law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument.

<i>Child and Family Agency (Formerly Health Service Executive) v OA</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A.[2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is an Irish Supreme Court case which determined the appropriateness of awarding costs in child care cases where there was an unsuccessful parental challenge to an application made by the Child and Family Agency (CFA). The Supreme Court established that there are circumstances where it might be suitable to award costs to unsuccessful parents who privately retained legal counsel; these being if the CFA "acted capriciously, arbitrarily or unreasonably in commencing or maintaining the proceedings", if "the outcome was particularly clear or compelling", or if it would be "particularly unjust towards the parents to award costs against them". It was stated that the District Court must outline its reasoning regarding a decision to award costs in such cases, holding that the Circuit Court should only reverse District Court decisions if the outlined principles and criteria are not followed.

<i>Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others[2014] IESC 19; [2014] 1 ILRM 457; [2014] 1 IR 198; was a Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is not required to provide information justifying a decision to hold a trial in the Special Criminal Court, unless it can be shown the decision was made mala fides. This decision further specified that the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) neither specified the nature of a fair trial nor identified trial-by-jury as a right.

References

  1. ↑ Gilroy -v- Flynn [2004] IESC 98, 3 December 2004, retrieved 30 April 2024
  2. ↑ Biehler, Hilary (2018). Delany and McGrath on civil procedure. McGrath, Declan (Barrister),, Egan McGrath, Emily (Fourth ed.). Dublin, Ireland. pp. 5–166, 15–110. ISBN   9780414066335. OCLC   1031527408.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ↑ Canny, Martin (23 June 2016). Limitation of actions (Second ed.). Dublin. ISBN   9780414056541. OCLC   956531858.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. ↑ [2014] IESC 98 [13]
  5. ↑ Byrne and Delany, Raymond and Hilary (2005). "Practice and Procedure". Annual Review of Irish Law 2004. 18: 409–430, 420 – via Westlaw IE.
  6. ↑ Collins, Sam (2014). "Practice and Procedure". Annual Review of Irish Law. 1 (1): 557 – via Westlaw IE.
  7. ↑ [2014] IESC 98 [6]
  8. ↑ [2014] IESC 98 [13]
  9. ↑ [1996] 2 IR 459
  10. ↑ [2014] IESC 98 [11]
  11. ↑ [2014] IESC 98 [12]
  12. ↑ [2014] IESC 98 [14]
  13. ↑ [2014] IESC 98 [13]
  14. ↑ Biehler, Hilary (2018). Delany and McGrath on civil procedure. McGrath, Declan (Barrister),, Egan McGrath, Emily (Fourth ed.). Dublin, Ireland. pp. 15–67. ISBN   9780414066335. OCLC   1031527408.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  15. ↑ Maxwell v Irish Life Assurance plc [2018] IEHC 111
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.