The High Court has dismissed a long-running property sale claim against three sisters after finding that the plaintiff allowed the proceedings to remain effectively dormant for about eight years.
Homes of Heritage Limited had sought specific performance of a 2006 agreement under which Ian Cunningham, Elizabeth Bredin, Susan Bredin and Olga Bredin agreed to buy land for €5.75 million. The sale did not complete, and the company eventually issued proceedings in August 2011.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2025, Mr Justice Liam Kennedy dismissed the action against Elizabeth, Susan and Olga Bredin for want of prosecution. Ian Cunningham was not a party to the strike-out motion.
The court found that after discovery from Cunningham was completed in April 2016, the case remained dormant until June 2024, apart from isolated matters including a Freedom of Information request, a 2019 notice of intention to proceed and legal advice obtained in 2020.
Mr Justice Kennedy rejected the company’s contention that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kirwan v Connors meant a dismissal application could only succeed where there had been an uninterrupted two-year period of inactivity immediately before the motion. He held that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction survives alongside Order 122 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and allows the court to consider the total history of delay.
The judge also rejected Covid-19 as a meaningful explanation for the inactivity and criticised the lack of direct evidence from any company director explaining why the case had not been advanced.
The court found that the proceedings could have been brought to trial years earlier. Although some issues were document-based, factual witnesses would still be required and the passage of time created the ordinary risks of fading memories and diminished evidence.
The applicants also undertook to discontinue separate proceedings seeking repayment of €820,000 under a related 2006 loan arrangement if the property claim was dismissed.
The proceedings were therefore dismissed against the three sisters. They were presumptively entitled to their costs, subject to further submissions.