The Supreme Court has dismissed Brendan Kirwan’s appeal against the dismissal of proceedings arising from a disputed property transaction, while setting a two-year period of inactivity as the primary yardstick for future applications to dismiss cases for want of prosecution.
In a judgment delivered on 30 May 2025, the seven-judge court upheld the outcome reached by the High Court and Court of Appeal. The appeal concerned the dismissal of Kirwan’s 2013 proceedings against solicitors and others, as well as related orders affecting separate proceedings. The Supreme Court did not decide the underlying dispute over whether the 2006 transaction and documents were genuine.
Kirwan disputed that the transaction had taken place and alleged that documents were forged. He said he was abroad when they were purportedly signed and raised concerns about the legal representation he received. These were his allegations; the Supreme Court appeal concerned delay and the earlier procedural orders.
The 2013 proceedings were adjourned in December 2013 so Kirwan could pursue his related claims. Even accepting his account that he served notices for particulars in January 2014, the court found that no qualifying procedural step followed for more than four years. It rejected his explanations that the defendants had not answered the notices and that he lacked the original solicitors’ file. The court said he had not followed up on the alleged defaults, and noted that a copy of the file had been sent to his solicitor in 2010.
The High Court dismissed the combined proceedings in 2019 for want of prosecution. The Court of Appeal dismissed three appeals concerning that decision, later corrections to the High Court orders, and the related 2012 action against Eamonn Buttle. At the Supreme Court, all seven judges agreed the appeal should be dismissed. The judgment records differences among judges on aspects of the legal reasoning, while the result was unanimous.
The Supreme Court said inactivity of two years or more should be treated as inordinate and prima facie inexcusable, creating a presumption in favour of dismissal that a plaintiff may rebut with a good reason. Dismissal is not automatic: courts may consider active case management or strict deadlines, and must assess the circumstances as a whole. The court said delays of four years or more would normally lead to dismissal without proof of prejudice, absent special reasons.
Applying that approach, the court found Kirwan had not justified the more than four-year gap after January 2014. It said he had received a final opportunity to pursue his claims when the related cases were adjourned, and that he failed to act with the required speed. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal and left the earlier orders in place.