The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kirwan v Connors[1] in May 2025 has reshaped the litigation landscape by reformulating the relevant criteria for strike out applications. The decision has introduced a structured, time-based framework for dismissing claims due to delay.
We frequently see claims with long periods of inactivity which, under previous rules, would have been unlikely to succeed on strike-out applications. Therefore, this decision is of particular interest for defendant insurers as it significantly strengthens their position.
Reformulated test
In Kirwan, the Court held that prolonged inactivity by plaintiffs, absent compelling justification, can warrant dismissal, particularly where oral evidence is central. The judgment established clear thresholds:
- Less than 2 years inactivity: Dismissal only for abuse of process or serious prejudice
- 2–4 years: Dismissal possible where aggravating factors exist
- 4+ years: Presumption in favour of dismissal, especially where oral evidence is required
- 5+ years: Dismissal likely unless compelling justice demands otherwise
This framework shifts the focus away from proving specific prejudice. Delay is now treated as inherently prejudicial, especially in cases reliant on witness recollection.
Recent High Court applications
We have already seen two subsequent High Court decisions applying Kirwan which illustrate how Kirwan’s principles are being applied:
Dennis Guilfoyle Developments Limited v Wardrop [2025] IEHC 414
The High Court dismissed proceedings after over four years of complete inactivity. Barr J. emphasised that oral evidence would be required regarding a 2006 contract, and the 82-year-old defendant would face significant disadvantage due to fading memory. The Court concluded that prejudice was inevitable and struck out the claim.
Nowak v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland [2025] IEHC 408
Here, the Court addressed an eight-and-a-half-year delay, falling squarely within Kirwan’s fourth category. Applying the presumption of dismissal, the Court found no pressing exigency of justice to justify continuation and ordered the proceedings struck out.
What does this mean going forward?
The trajectory is clear: Irish courts are prioritising active case management and signalling intolerance for prolonged inactivity. Key implications for plaintiffs are the increased burden to justify delay where undue pauses to proceedings may see cases dismissed. For defendants, there is now no obligation to warn the plaintiffs before seeking dismissal but they should also be mindful that prolonged inaction may still amount to acquiescence and thereby undermine an application for dismissal.
Since the Kirwan judgment was delivered, we expect that defendant solicitors and their insurers have been actively reviewing claims to identify opportunities for strike-out applications, now with the benefit of a clear framework. The prospects of success can be assessed with far greater confidence than under the previous regime. We also anticipate that defendant insurers will look to use strike-out applications as leverage in settlement negotiations, an approach that may justify the upfront cost. In the short term this will lead to an increase in strike-out applications and in the medium term, a broader shift toward proactive litigation management by plaintiffs.
If you need advice on the impact of Kirwan v Connors, or anything else regarding litigation, get in touch with our experts.
[1]Kirwan -v- Connors & ors [2025] IESC 21
