Application to reinstate judgment obtained in 2002 dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay

Application to dismiss plaintiffs' claim on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay - plaintiffs seek reinstatement of a judgment against defendants obtained by David Patton Ltd., undefended, and duly entered on 24th July, 2002, in the sum of iR£129,288.60 which is €164,162.66 - judgment was assigned by Deed of 19th November, 2011, by this limited company to the plaintiffs - notice of this was served on the defendants on 19th November, 2002 - limited company went into voluntary liquidation on 21st November, 2002 - judgment was subsequently registered as a judgment mortgage over the home, Bushertown House, of the first named defendant and his wife subject to a prior mortgage in favour of Roscrea Credit Union which had been registered on the Folio on 11 August, 2002 - on 23rd March, 2003, the plaintiffs were granted leave to issue execution on foot of this judgment - appears to have been the only step taken to enforce the judgment - by an agreement made on 22nd June, 2006, in an apparent effort to compromise with their creditors, the two defendants allege they came to an agreement whereby they settled any debt due by them to the plaintiffs by the payment of €30,000 - they say this was sanctioned by Roscrea Credit Union and amounted to all they could get from the sale of the house after the Credit Union was satisfied - agreement was evidenced in writing and was signed by the second named plaintiff - plaintiff agreed that this payment was accepted in full and final settlement "of any claims that I may have against the Rudd family in respect of the judgment mortgage" - plaintiffs argue that this settlement was only in respect of the discharge of the mortgage and not in satisfaction of all debts due on foot of the judgment - this settlement subsequently resulted in the judgment being marked as 'Satisfied' on 6th March, 2008 - plaintiffs claim this satisfaction was entered without their knowledge - not, they claim, until early January 2012 that they discovered this satisfaction when their solicitors attempted to recover on this judgment - no explanation forthcoming for delay by plaintiffs in attempting to recover on the judgment they claim still existed even after the alleged settlement in 2006, and the marking as 'Satisfied' of the judgment in March 2008 - inordinate delay - no acceptable or logical excuse proffered for this delay.