Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused the defendants motion to strike out the plaintiff bank's proceedings on the grounds of alleged delay where: a) the bank had genuinely attempted to compromise the proceedings during the three-year period of alleged delay; b) the defendants did not adequately engage with the plaintiff bank; and c) no prejudice could be shown by the defendant.
Husband and wife defendants seeking order dismissing the plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution or an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay or an abuse of process - defendants entered into loan agreements with plaintiff bank - court's have an inherent jurisdiction to control their own procedure - plaintiff bank attempted to contact defendants to reach compromise - defendants found to have failed to comply with their procedural requirements to progress proceedings - husband found to have acted with permission of wife - no prejudice suffered by the defendants - motion refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now