Homes of Heritage Ltd v Cunningham & Ors [2025] IEHC 724

In a significant procedural ruling applying the Supreme Court’s reformulation of the law on delay in civil litigation in Ireland, the High Court has dismissed a long-running claim for want of prosecution in Homes of Heritage Ltd v Cunningham & Ors. The decision highlights the courts’ increasingly robust approach to dormant litigation following Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21.

 

Background

The plaintiff, Homes of Heritage Ltd, a property development company, brought contractual claims against the defendants arising from transactions dating back almost two decades. Although proceedings were issued some years earlier, the action was characterised by extended periods of inactivity, particularly between 2017 and 2024.

The second to fourth defendants applied to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution, relying on Order 122, rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

 

Legal Framework

The case was considered against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kirwan v Connors, which re-formulated the test for dismissal arising from delay and want of prosecution in civil litigation. Kirwan established a two‑year benchmark period of inactivity which, if exceeded, creates a presumption in favour of dismissal unless compelling justification exists.

A key issue was whether limited procedural steps taken by the plaintiff could “reset the clock” and defeat a dismissal application.

 

Decision

Mr Justice Kennedy rejected that argument. He held that:

– The two‑year benchmark is a guide, not an absolute threshold.
– The High Court retains a broad inherent jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings where delay is inordinate and inexcusable.
– Token or isolated procedural steps cannot neutralise prolonged periods of inactivity.

Taking the overall procedural history into account, the Court concluded that the delay undermined the administration of justice and justified dismissal of the proceedings against the moving defendants.

 

Practical Implications

The judgment confirms that courts will examine the entirety of a case’s timeline rather than focusing narrowly on recent activity. Parties cannot rely on minimal procedural engagement to preserve dormant claims. Active case management and consistent progress are essential to avoid dismissal.

This case is yet more evidence of a change in approach to dormant litigation in Ireland, which will be welcomed by all those involved in the defence of medical negligence cases.

 

For legal guidance and advice regarding professional negligence , please contact Kevin Hegarty, or any member of our team.

While great care has been taken in the preparation of the content of this article, it does not purport to be a comprehensive statement of the relevant law and full professional advice should be taken before any action is taken in reliance on any item covered.