The judgment extensively referenced established legal principles and precedents to substantiate the decision. Notably:

• Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 I.R. 459: This Supreme Court case remains the leading authority on applications to dismiss proceedings based on inordinate and inexcusable delay. It outlines the inherent jurisdiction of courts to control their own procedures and emphasizes the need for balance in justice.
• Sweeney v. Keating [2019] IECA 43: The Court of Appeal highlighted the necessity for courts to actively ensure timely litigation, referencing constitutional obligations and adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• Gibbons v. N6 (Construction) Ltd [2022] IECA 112: Reiterated the constitutional imperative to eliminate delays in litigation, emphasizing the recalibration of factors to account for judicial obligations.
• Cave Projects Ltd v. Kelly [2022] IECA 245: Reinforced that dismissal should only occur where significant delay clearly tips the balance of justice against proceeding with the case.
• Tuohy v. Courtney [1994] 3 I.R. 1: Addressed the plaintiff's constitutional right to litigate, balancing it against the defendant's rights and the necessity for reasonable expedition in legal proceedings.

Mr. Justice Simons employed a structured approach to assess the application for dismissal:

1. Inordinate Delay: Identified that since October 2013, with pleadings closed and discovery complete, the plaintiff failed to advance the case towards trial for approximately eight years, which is deemed inordinate for a personal injuries action.
2. Inexcusable Delay: Noted the plaintiff's concession that the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable, supported by evidence of inadequate communication and failure to provide instructions to her solicitor since 2015.
3. Balance of Justice: Weighed the prejudice to the defendant, including compromised ability to defend due to faded witness recollection and the retirement and ill health of key personnel, against the plaintiff's loss of the opportunity to pursue her claim. The court found that the defendant's rights and the integrity of the judicial process outweighed the plaintiff's interests in this context.

The court underscored the principles from Primor, emphasizing that dismissal is a last resort and requires a careful, fact-based assessment rather than a mechanistic application of rules. The judgment highlighted the importance of "reasonable expedition" in litigation and the adverse effects of prolonged delays on the fairness of trial proceedings.

The decision in Sheehan v Cork County Council reinforces the judiciary's stance on combating procedural delays. It serves as a potent reminder to plaintiffs of their obligation to diligently pursue their claims and underscores the courts' readiness to dismiss cases where delays undermine the fairness and efficiency of the legal process. This judgment may influence future cases by providing a clear framework for assessing delay-related dismissal applications, emphasizing a balanced approach that protects both plaintiffs' rights and defendants' interests.

Moreover, the case highlights the relevance of constitutional principles and human rights considerations, particularly the ECHR's impact on ensuring timely justice. Legal practitioners will likely reference this judgment when advising clients on the importance of prompt action in litigation to avoid dismissal on procedural grounds.

The judgment touches upon several legal concepts that may require clarification:

• Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay: Refers to a prolonged period in litigation that is unreasonable and unjustifiable, hindering the fair progression of the case.
• Balance of Justice: A judicial assessment weighing the interests and rights of both parties to determine whether the continuation of the case serves equitable ends.
• Limitation Period: A statutory timeframe within which legal proceedings must be initiated, after which the right to sue may be extinguished.
• Primor Balancing Test: A legal framework derived from the Primor case, guiding courts in evaluating whether delays warrant dismissal based on multiple factors rather than rigid criteria.
• Constitutional Right to Litigate: The fundamental entitlement of individuals to seek remedy through the courts, balanced against other legal principles to ensure justice.

Understanding these concepts is crucial for comprehending how procedural delays can impact the viability of legal actions and the responsibilities of parties involved in litigation.