Goode Concrete v Cement Roadstone Holdings PLC and Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

These proceedings were instituted by plenary summons on 19 October 2010 concerning events alleged to have occurred between 2007 and 2011. The Plaintiff sued three defendants (hereafter “Company A”, “Company B” and “Company C”). By motions dated 11 November 2022 (Company A and Company B) and 2 May 2025 (Company C), the defendants sought orders under the court's inherent jurisdiction striking out the proceedings for abuse of process and/or want of prosecution, principally because the Plaintiff had failed to discharge a series of adjudicated costs orders made in favour of the defendants.

By consent order of 14 December 2023 the High Court stayed the proceedings pending payment of the costs then due. Almost two years later the Plaintiff had paid only €5,000 to Company A and €5,000 to Company C. Judge Barrett delivered judgment on 13 January 2026, striking out the proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court should, under its inherent jurisdiction and relevant Rules of the Superior Courts, strike out the proceedings for abuse of process and/or want of prosecution due to the Plaintiff's continuing failure to pay adjudicated costs.
2. Whether EU law (Art. 47 CFEU) or the constitutional right of access to the courts limits or prevents strike-out in these circumstances.
3. Whether a less severe alternative (notably an "unless" order) should be imposed instead of striking out.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• EU law (Art. 47 CFEU) requires that procedural steps impeding access to justice respect effectiveness and equivalence, and the court should exercise restraint before striking out, considering less onerous measures (e.g. an "unless" order).
• Striking out would infringe the constitutional right of access to the courts, particularly important in competition cases; dismissal would be disproportionate.
• The Plaintiff asserted a realistic prospect of raising funds to pay costs (sale or remediation of "The Site") and urged that doubts be resolved in its favour at interlocutory stage.
• Past procedural difficulties were said to be inadvertent or misunderstandings and not cumulatively abusive to the level warranting strike-out.
• Delay should not be deemed inordinate because portions were occupied by agreed stays, procedural disputes and funding efforts.

Defendants' Arguments

• The court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction to strike out for abuse of process and/or failure to prosecute because the Plaintiff repeatedly refused to pay adjudicated costs and conducted the litigation vexatiously.
• The Plaintiff has had reasonable time and opportunities to pay but has provided no credible or verified plan to discharge the costs; partial, token payments were insufficient.
• The history of procedural misconduct, prejudice to witnesses and delay justify strike-out rather than further indulgence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Barrett accepted that the court possesses an inherent jurisdiction and statutory powers (including s.27(5) Judicature Act 1877 and O.63B, r.5 RSC) to stay or strike out proceedings for abuse of process or non-payment of adjudicated costs. He distilled general principles from the authorities and treated the recent Supreme Court decision in Kirwan ([2025] IESC 21) as determinative on delay and want of prosecution: where delay exceeds two years the burden shifts to the plaintiff to justify continuation, and prolonged delay with prejudice jeopardises the administration of justice.

Applying those principles to the facts, the Judge found: (i) the Plaintiff had repeatedly failed to comply with multiple costs orders despite a consent stay requiring payment; (ii) only token payments had been made; (iii) the Plaintiff produced no credible, verified evidence or realistic plan to raise the necessary funds (the asserted sale/remediation of "The Site" was speculative, ownership was unclear, the alleged owning company appeared insolvent, charges and regulatory approvals were unresolved, and no shareholder had committed proceeds to litigation costs); (iv) the Plaintiff had engaged in vexatious and oppressive conduct at times (notably oppressive interrogatories, repeated discovery failures, misleading/incomplete material, long inactivity and unfulfilled promises); and (v) the defendants had shown concrete prejudice (witness deaths, retirements, fading memories).

The Judge considered and rejected the Plaintiff's EU-law and constitutional-access arguments, holding that Art.47 CFEU and the right of access do not entitle a litigant to disregard domestic costs orders or to continue litigation indefinitely. He concluded an "unless" order would be futile given the Plaintiff's history and lack of credible evidence of ability or intention to pay.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Court ordered that the proceedings be struck out.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the proceedings are ended; the Court will hear the parties as to the costs of the strike-out applications. The judgment applies existing principles (notably Kirwan) to the facts and does not purport to establish a new general legal principle beyond applying established authorities and appellate guidance.