Supreme Court Clarifies Rules on Delay

Background

The underlying dispute arose from two property agreements dating back to 2006. Although legal proceedings were issued in 2013 for breach of contract, the Plaintiff took no meaningful steps for five years. The Defendants successfully applied to have the case struck out in 2019 due to inordinate and inexcusable delay - a decision upheld by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. In affirming the dismissal, the Supreme Court revisited the Primor principles, underscoring the constitutional imperative of timely justice and procedural fairness.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court introduced a more structured framework for addressing delay, effectively reformulating the Primor principles.

Citing Order 122 Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, O'Donnell C.J. emphasised that Irish Law should recognise the importance and significance of the passage of time and held that delay is, in and of itself, sufficient to justify the dismissal of a claim.  The Court held that:

1. Where there has been inactivity spanning less than 2 years, a case may be dismissed only if (1) the claim represents an abuse of process; or (2) prejudice arises to the defendant.

2. Where there has been inactivity for a total of 2+ years, a case may be dismissed for want of prosecution only if (1) the period of inactivity is capable of being associated with some additional prejudice; or (2) some other factor(s) justifying dismissal of the claim are present.

3. Where there has been inactivity for 4+ years, there is a presumption of dismissal should the claim be dependent on oral evidence, unless compelling reasons justify continuation (the Supreme Court noting inter alia the inherent risk of prejudice arising due to things such as fading memory and witness unavailability).

4. Where there has been inactivity for more than 5 years, the court will have generous power to dismiss, and only in exceptional circumstances (such as public interest demands, social or economic disadvantage, or where there is serious misconduct by the defendant) can a plaintiff justify the continuation of proceedings.

Conclusion

The decision highlights the significance of procedural diligence in legal proceedings under Irish law with the onus of progressing a case on the Plaintiff. It sends a strong message that unreasonable delay will not be tolerated by the Judiciary and emphasises the need for simplicity and clarity in deciding such matters.

Click here to read the Judgments:

Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21 O'Donnell CJ

Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21 Hogan J

Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21 Murray J

Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC Collins J

Written by: Christian Carlyle and Rebecca Oliphant