User:Gadaby75/sandbox2

Aer Rianta PCT v Ryanair Ltd [2004], was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court highlighted its (and the high court)power exercisable at any procedural stage),to strike out, or order the amendment of "...matter in any endorsement or pleading "where the court concludes that the relevant pleading is unnecessary or scandalous, or one tending to 'prejudice,embarrass, or delay'a fair trial on the merits. ...

Background
The facts giving rise to the Aer Rianta claim are straight forward.AR alleged that in a January 2001 press release(with the same information repeated on the Ryanair website),Ryanair stated that the passenger service charge was IR 9.50 per person .AR contended that at all material times, the actual charge was IR 7.20 .AR thus alleged that Ryanair has unjustly enriched itself by levying a charge on its passengers on the basis that it was required to pay IR 9.50 to AR,but it was actually liable for the lesser IR 7.20 sum;AR claimed that Ryanair unlawfully kept the balance.

Key issues:
Ryanair had defended the AR claim on the primary basis that the stated charge was only an approximation, one based on various information sources-there was no intention to publish incorrect information, thus no malicious intent could be established .Ryanair sought to strike out specific statement of claim paragraphs on this basis; it did not seek the entire action dismissed in its High court application.

Holding of the Supreme Court
In its its narrow, tightly reasoned interpretation of the applicable procedural rule, the court highlighted its (and the high court )power (exercisable at any procedural stage), to strike out, or order the amendment of any "...matter in any endorsement or pleading "where the court concludes that the relevant pleading is unnecessary or scandalous, or one tending to 'prejudice, embarrass, or delay'a fair trial on the merits. ...

In its narrow, tightly reasoned analysis, the court held that it has jurisdiction to strike out an entire pleading ,or document (such as statement of claim),but not a portion of it .The court thus dismissed the appeal, the appeal, and reinforced the narrow procedural rule.

Subsequent developments
The AR v Ryanair relevance is rooted in the comments made by Denham J concerning the overarching public policy that shapes, and informs all civil procedure rules regimes.Denham J reinforcesthe concern that if Ryanair was permitted to seek an order striking out ('blue pencil' )portions of statement of claim or defences, more high court parties would simply 'fight on the pleadings',a notion is antithetical to expeditious litigation.In other words,AR v Ryanair is a well-worded endorsement of the court focusing on substantive claims, and encouraging the parties to advance substantive issues, whilst avoiding being unduly bogged down by procedural minutiae.

Anglo Irish Beef Proceessors Ltd v Montgomery
Anglo Irish Beef processors Ltd v Montgomery, [2002] 3 IR 510, was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court was required to consider whether the high court had erred in refusing the

defendants' application to have the plaintiff's claim stuck out on the basis that there was  an 'inordinate and inexcusable delay' in the claims 'prosecution. ...

Background
The claim involved a share purchase -share valuation with a 1989 commencement point.When a valuation dispute arose, the plaintiff served a of their intention to proceed in 1998, and 2000.The proceedings giving rise to this appeal were commenced in earnest in march 2001 .In the meantime, a key witness(Devine)died, and the defendants now alleged that the inordinate delay now severely prejudiced its ability to make full defence to the plaintiff's claims.The high court had not been persuaded that Devine (an accountant)was actually as vital to the defence position as was alleged, given that another accountant could provide the necessary accounting evidence that the defence sought to rely upon.

Key issues:
In series of connected proceedings, the supreme court was required to consider whether the high court erred in refusing the defendant's application to have the plaintiff's claim truck out on the basis that there was an 'inordinate and inexcusable delay' in the claims' prosecution.

The high court had agreed with the defendants that while the delay was 'inordinate and inexcusable',Primor plc.v stokes Crowley applied,and the balance of justice favoured allowing the action to proceed .No plaintiff cross appeal was instituted concerning the high court finding that inordinate and inexcusable delay existed

Holding of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (Keane CJ)emphasised three key points in reaching its decision to allow the appeal, and thus dismiss the entire action.The first point was the courts's application of Primor plc. stokes, with clear recognition that all courts have an inherent jurisdiction to control their own procedure, and thus dismiss a claim 'when the interest of justice require them to do so. The court buttresses this view with the practical observation (citing O'Domhnaill v Merrick), that all such applications will be strongly circumstance -specific, and principles are far preferable to hard and fast rules.

In assessing the third point (whether the plaintiff could establish the requisite 'interest of justice', the curt makes this unambiguous assertion.The 'author' of an inordinate and inexcusable delay(in this case, the plaintiff),must  not be absolved of fault unless also establish that 'countervailing circumstances' exist.The court  concluded that in these circumstances ,the high court had correctly  characterise the delay, but it had failed to give appropriate to two other crucial factors favouring the defence;(!)dimming of memories' where the defendants were relying on oral evidence to dispute the effect of a written agreement,and thus significant defence prejudice  arising from the delay; and (2),applying applying Southern mineral oil Ltd(in liquidation) v Cooney ,the court must give effect to the prejudice suffered by particular defendants who must have an action 'hanging over their heads for years.

Subsequent developments
It is suggested that the Aglo reasons are an excellent example of what problems will befall a plaintiff who does not prosecute their action on time ,.Even where the plaintiff is not unduly careless  in their procedural approach ,the plaintiff clearly assumes the risk that any factors that might militate in favour of the defence establishing inordinate delay will likely be given full effect.