Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Professional negligence claim dismissed due to plaintiffs’ inordinate and inexcusable delay
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal upholds the High Court's decision to dismiss a professional negligence claim due to the plaintiffs' inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting the case, on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to progress the proceedings since their initiation in 2016, and despite the plaintiffs' arguments regarding parallel proceedings and awaiting the outcome of a Tax Appeals Commission decision, these reasons did not excuse the delay.
Professional negligence - inordinate delay - inexcusable delay - strike out - High Court - Court of Appeal - Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) - statement of claim - parallel proceedings - COVID-19 pandemic - health issues - fair trial prejudice - costs - Primor plc v Stokes Kennedy Crowley - Diamrem Ltd. v Clare County Council - Cave Projects v. Gilhooley - Comcast International Holdings Incorporated v. Minister for Public Enterprise - Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) - balance of justice - Statute of Limitations - protective writ.
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.
