Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment

Charleton and Anor v Scriven (Approved)

Smart Summary

Summary of High Court Judgment (Anonymized)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiffs were appointed receivers of eight properties in 2014 which had been mortgaged to Company A. The Defendant owed approximately €4.25m and had made no payments since 2013. The Plaintiffs obtained an interlocutory injunction in August 2014 restraining the Defendant from interfering with rent collection; that injunction was later varied on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Defendant brought an application seeking (a) review/variation of the High Court's 24 January 2025 judgment (which had refused his earlier motion to dismiss for want of prosecution), relying on subsequent Supreme Court authorities, and (b) an order vacating the interlocutory injunction. The High Court (Judge Kennedy) heard the motion and, for reasons set out below, dismissed the Defendant's application in its entirety on 28 January 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the trial judge could revisit, vary or supplement his earlier written judgment dismissing the Defendant's application to strike out for want of prosecution in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
  2. Whether, in light of subsequent authority, the interlocutory injunction should be lifted.
  3. Whether the Plaintiffs' delay justified dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution under the applicable test.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

  • The judge should review or alter his 24 January 2025 judgment under Articles 34.3.1 and 40.1 of the Constitution and the Court's inherent jurisdiction, relying principally on Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21 and Tweedswood Limited (in Receivership) & Tom Kavanagh (Receiver) v Power [2025] IESC 18.
  • The subsequent Supreme Court decisions changed the applicable test for dismissal for want of prosecution (placing greater emphasis on delay and reducing the need to show specific prejudice), so the earlier refusal should be revisited.
  • The injunction should be lifted because of prolonged delay and the practical prejudice of properties lying empty and rents being applied rather than retained.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

  • The Original Judgment was a final adjudication of the Defendant's application; the proper remedy for any complaint was appeal, not revisiting by the trial judge.
  • There has been diligent progression of the proceedings since April 2024 and no new factual material justifying reopening; Tweedswood did not change the law and Kirwan does not entitle the Defendant to reopen a final decision.
  • The use of rents to manage properties was consistent with the final order and any remedy for alleged misuse is damages; there is no present utility in reopening the matter.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Tweedswood Limited (in Receivership) & Tom Kavanagh (Receiver) v Power [2025] IESC 18 Reaffirmed jurisdiction to discharge interlocutory orders where a plaintiff has failed to progress the action; applied existing principles (a "use it or lose it" approach to interlocutory relief). The judge held Tweedswood did not change the law and would not have led him to lift the injunction; it was an application of established principles consistent with the Original Judgment.
Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21 Restated the test for dismissal for want of prosecution/inherent jurisdiction: increased emphasis on lengthy delay and reduced emphasis on the need to show specific prejudice; prolonged enjoyment of a litigation benefit can weigh in favour of dismissal. The judge acknowledged Kirwan would have been more favourable to the Defendant but concluded he could not revisit his final earlier decision on that basis; Kirwan did not justify reopening the judgment absent exceptional circumstances.
Primor v Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 IR 459 Established test (the "Primor" test) for dismissing for want of prosecution: identify inordinate delay, whether inexcusable, assess prejudice and balance of justice. The judge had applied the Primor test at the Hearing and formed provisional views under it; those views informed the Original Judgment subject to normal appellate rights.
Merck Sharpe & Dohme v Clonmel Healthcare Limited [2020] 2 IR 1 Shows that the court may vary or withdraw interlocutory orders where plaintiffs fail to diligently and expeditiously progress their claim. Cited in the Original Judgment and relied upon to explain that discharge of interlocutory relief is an available remedy for prolonged default.
Irish Commercial Society Ltd v Plunkett [1986] ILRM 624 Authority supporting the court's capacity to vary interlocutory orders in light of subsequent factual developments; distinguishes interlocutory from final orders. Relied on by the Defendant to argue the judge could vary his earlier order; the judge considered the analogy but treated his earlier ruling as final.
Purcell v Trigell Ltd [1971] I Q.B. 358 Lord Denning's observation that the court always has control over interlocutory orders and may in its discretion vary or alter them. Cited as supporting authority for variation of interlocutory orders; formed part of the discussion but did not permit reopening of the finalized judgment here.
Ainsworth v Wilding 1896 1 Ch. 673 Early authority on the distinction between interlocutory and final orders. Referenced in the discussion of finality and interlocutory jurisdiction (via Plunkett).
Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry v. Alte Leipzeiger Versicherung A.G [2000] 4 IR 32 Discussion of interlocutory versus final distinction; an order striking out for want of jurisdiction was held final for appeal purposes. Used to illustrate when an order is final and the limited circumstances in which it may be revisited.
Dale v British Coal Corporation [1992] 1 WLR 965 Where an issue is finally determined for the purposes of the action, its determination counts as a final judgment or order. Cited to support the proposition that a judge's final determination on an issue is final and not ordinarily revisitable by the trial judge.
DPP v McKevitt [2009] IESC 29 Describes the extremely high threshold to vary a final order: must show denial of justice or breach of constitutional rights. Referred to when discussing the rare and exceptional circumstances required to revisit a final judgment.
G. v Judge of the District Court [2021] IEHC 386 States that ordinarily an aggrieved party should appeal rather than ask the original court to review its own judgment; limited circumstances for review by first instance court. Adopted as persuasive guidance that first instance courts should not reopen final judgments except in limited circumstances.
Attorney General (SPUC (Ireland) Ltd) v Open Door Counselling Limited [1994] 2 IR 333 Majority held the Court could not vary its final order by virtue of a subsequent change in law (controversial; minority and later authority qualified this). Discussed as a similar authority illustrating the general rule against reopening final orders; Judge Kennedy noted its contested legacy.
Greendale Developments Ltd (No 3) [2000] 2 IR 514 Recognised an exceptional jurisdiction/duty to protect constitutional rights even when dealing with final orders, while emphasising rarity. Cited to show the narrow exception where final orders may be revisited to protect fundamental rights; judge found no such exceptional circumstances here.
Bula v Tara Mines Ltd [2000] 4 IR 412 Discusses exceptional jurisdiction invoked to protect constitutional rights or natural justice. Used to illustrate the high threshold for revisiting final judgments.
O'Dwyer v Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul & Ors [2015] IECA 226 Example of an order (dismissing proceedings as statute-barred) being treated as a final order. Referenced in the discussion of what constitutes a final order.
Riordan v Taoiseach & Ors [2000] IESC 61 Authority commenting on the rationale for finality of orders and the limited exceptions. Relied upon in the analysis of finality and exceptions permitting reopening.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in distinct steps.

  1. Characterisation of the relief sought: The Defendant sought effectively to overturn the judge's earlier decision refusing dismissal for want of prosecution and to vacate the interlocutory injunction, relying on later Supreme Court decisions (Kirwan and Tweedswood).
  2. Interlocutory relief (Tweedswood): The judge held Tweedswood applied established principles and did not alter the law; Tweedswood would not have led him to a different outcome on the injunction given the facts and subsequent conduct of the parties.
  3. Effect of Kirwan: Kirwan restated the test for dismissal, increasing emphasis on prolonged delay and reducing the need to show specific prejudice; the judge accepted Kirwan would have made the Defendant's original application stronger but emphasised that this did not automatically permit reopening a final decision.
  4. Finality and functus officio: The judge concluded his January 2025 written judgment was a final decision on the Defendant's original application. Once formalised, the judge's jurisdiction was spent save in wholly exceptional circumstances (fraud, denial of justice, breach of constitutional rights), none of which were shown.
  5. Interlocutory vs final distinction: The court reviewed authorities distinguishing interlocutory and final orders and held that, while interlocutory orders may be varied in light of changed circumstances, a finalized ruling on an application of this nature is final and not open to rehearing absent exceptional grounds.
  6. No new factual basis: The judge found no new factual developments since the Original Judgment that would justify reopening; the only material change was a jurisprudential development, which is not a ground for the trial judge to revisit a finalized decision outside the appeal process.
  7. Practical considerations and fairness: The court emphasised the need for certainty in litigation and observed that allowing re‑openings because of subsequent changes in law would generate unacceptable uncertainty; it also noted the Plaintiffs had diligently progressed the case since April 2024, weighing against relief.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court DISMISSED the Defendant's application in its entirety.

Implications:

  • The Defendant's invitation to reopen or vary the 24 January 2025 judgment was refused; the Original Judgment stands and was treated as final for the purposes of this application.
  • The interlocutory injunction remains in place; no order was made lifting it.
  • The Plaintiffs' diligent progression of the proceedings since April 2024 was a key reason for refusing relief; the case is to proceed to trial as soon as practicable.
  • Costs: In the usual course the Plaintiffs would be entitled to costs, but the judge indicated there may be no order as to costs; either party may file brief submissions on costs within seven days, failing which the order dismissing the application will be finalised with no order as to costs.
  • No new precedent was created by this decision; the court applied existing principles about finality, interlocutory variation and the limited exceptional circumstances permitting revisiting of final orders.

Representation (Anonymized)

Attorney Corkery and Attorney Whelan, instructed by Attorney O'Meara, for the Plaintiffs. The Defendant appeared as a litigant in person.

Click here to read the full judgment
Click here to read the smart summary
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Charleton and Anor v Scriven (Approved)

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

Charleton and Anor v Scriven (Approved)
(Jan 28, 2026)