- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kirwan v Connors & ors (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff began two sets of proceedings arising out of events in 2005–2006. One action was issued in 2012 and the other—described by the Court as the “combined action”—in 2013. The existence of these suits had the practical effect of staying execution of a €1,056,936 judgment obtained against the Plaintiff by Company A in 2012.
No meaningful procedural steps were taken by the Plaintiff until August 2018, at which point the various Defendants (a group that includes practising solicitors and members of the Buttle family) moved to dismiss the 2013 proceedings for want of prosecution under Order 122 Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. Further dismissal motions—both by the Plaintiff and by other Respondents—followed in November 2018.
The High Court struck out both the 2012 and 2013 actions, finding the delay inordinate and inexcusable and concluding that the balance of justice favoured dismissal. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in March 2023, heard the matter before a seven-judge panel (inviting the Attorney General to participate), and delivered judgment on 30 May 2025.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the legal source of a court’s power to dismiss proceedings for want of prosecution: the inherent jurisdiction recognised in Primor v Stokes Kennedy Crowley or Order 122 Rule 11 (or both)?
- Whether, applying the correct test, the High Court and Court of Appeal were justified in dismissing the Plaintiff’s 2012 and 2013 actions for delay.
- Whether the long-standing Primor test remains fit for purpose or requires refinement, and if so, what revised framework should govern future dismissal applications.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Primor v Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 IR 459 | Established the modern three-limb test (inordinate delay, inexcusable delay, balance of justice) for striking out proceedings. | Central benchmark; all judges examined its adequacy and either refined it (majority) or argued it should be supplanted by Order 122 Rule 11. |
| Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine [1968] 2 QB 229 | English authority recognising an inherent jurisdiction to dismiss for delay. | Discussed by Judge Murray to show that Ireland adopted an English approach without analysing the impact of Order 122 Rule 11. |
| Birkett v James [1977] 3 WLR 38 | House of Lords endorsement of the inherent dismissal power. | Used in the comparative analysis leading Judge Murray to question reliance on English doctrine. |
| G McG v DW (No. 2) [2000] 4 IR 1 | Where legislation “occupies the field,” inherent jurisdiction may be excluded. | Invoked by Judge Murray to argue that Order 122 Rule 11 leaves no residual inherent power. |
| O’Domhnaill v Merrick [1984] IR 151 | Test for dismissal where a fair trial cannot be obtained or there is an abuse of process. | Identified as a separate but related jurisdiction; used to demarcate when dismissal is permissible before two years' inactivity. |
| Barry v Buckley [1981] IR 306 | Inherent jurisdiction to strike out claims “bound to fail.” | Cited to illustrate coexistence of inherent powers alongside procedural rules. |
| Campbell v Geraghty [2022] IEHC 241 | Defendants are not obliged to drive litigation forward. | Quoted with approval to support the view that defendant inactivity does not excuse plaintiff delay. |
| Slattery v An Taoiseach [1993] 1 IR 286 | Access-to-court rights are not infringed merely because a court applies procedural rules. | Relied upon to reject the notion that dismissal for delay unjustifiably impairs constitutional rights. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Seven judges delivered concurring judgments. The Chief Justice (Judge O’Donnell) distilled substantial areas of agreement and articulated a unified, more stringent test for future cases. The key analytical steps were:
- Source of Jurisdiction: A majority (Judges O’Donnell, Hogan, Dunne, Charleton, O’Malley, Collins) held that both the inherent jurisdiction and Order 122 Rule 11 coexist. Judge Murray dissented on this point, arguing the rule is exclusive. The Court declined to adopt Judge Murray’s narrower view because (a) the issue had not been argued in detail, (b) rules of court rarely displace inherent powers, and (c) Primor has been embedded in Irish practice for almost three decades.
- Re-evaluation of Primor: All judges accepted that experience has shown the Primor test to be procedurally burdensome, subject to inconsistent application, and insufficiently responsive to the intrinsic harm caused by delay itself.
- Passage of Time as an Independent Ground: The Court emphasised that delay alone prejudices justice and can justify dismissal without additional proof of concrete prejudice.
- Refined Thresholds: Drawing principally on Judge Murray’s formulation, endorsed by Judge Hogan and the Chief Justice, the Court set out four bands of inactivity:
- 0–2 years: Dismissal only for abuse of process or where a fair trial is impossible.
- 2+ years: Court may dismiss; if it chooses not to, strict case-management directions should issue.
- 4+ years: Presumption of dismissal in cases dependent on oral evidence unless compelling countervailing reasons exist.
- 5+ years: Court “should feel free” to dismiss unless a pressing exigency of justice requires the case to proceed.
- Defendant Inactivity: The Court (majority) held that a defendant’s failure to spur the litigation forward does not ordinarily absolve the plaintiff; only conduct amounting to acquiescence or active encouragement of delay would weigh against dismissal.
- Application to Present Facts: The Plaintiff’s four-plus-year period of complete inactivity, combined with the collateral benefit of a stay on Company A’s judgment, warranted dismissal despite moderate (rather than concrete) prejudice to the Defendants.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal is dismissed; the orders of the High Court and Court of Appeal striking out the 2012 and 2013 proceedings are affirmed.
Implications: The Supreme Court has replaced the open-ended Primor balancing exercise with a clearer, time-based framework that elevates lapse of time as an independent ground for dismissal. While the Court encouraged amendment of the Rules of the Superior Courts, its decision already binds lower courts and is expected to streamline future applications, reduce satellite litigation, and place a heavier onus on plaintiffs to progress their claims promptly.
Alert