Goode Concrete v Cement Roadstone Holdings Plc and Ors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 13 January 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 11
• Docket Number: [2010 No. 10685 P]

Between:

Goode Concrete

Plaintiff

and

CRH plc, Roadstone Wood Limited and Kilsaran Concrete

Defendants

[2026] IEHC 11

[2010 No. 10685 P]

THE HIGH COURT

Strike out – Abuse of process – Prosecutorial delay – Defendants seeking to strike out the proceedings – Whether there was an abuse of process

Facts: The plaintiff, Goode Concrete, commenced proceedings on 19 November 2010 and the events the subject of the proceedings were alleged to have taken place between 2007 and 2011. The first and second defendants, CRH plc and Roadstone Wood Ltd, by notice of motion of 11 November 2022, and the third defendant, Kilsaran Concrete, by notice of motion of 2 May 2025, asked the High Court, under its inherent jurisdiction, to strike out the proceedings for abuse of process and failure to prosecute, due to the plaintiff’s continuing refusal to pay sums owed under multiple High Court and Court of Appeal costs orders. The plaintiff had not discharged a series of adjudicated costs orders made in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff submitted that: because the claim concerned alleged breaches of European Union competition law, Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union afforded it protection; striking out its claim infringed its constitutionally protected right of access to the courts; strike-out would be disproportionate; fairness required the making of an ‘unless’ order rather than a dismissal; sale or remediation of the Ballinderry site would generate sufficient funds to discharge all outstanding costs within a reasonable period; past procedural difficulties were misunderstandings or inadvertent errors rather than abusive conduct; delay should not be regarded as inordinate; because the case concerned alleged breaches of Arts. 101-102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, it served an important public-interest function; and a fair trial remained possible because much of the evidence was documentary, contemporaneous records existed, and the defendants’ claims of prejudice were overstated.

Held by Barrett J that: the plaintiff had no realistic prospect of paying the costs due under the costs orders within a reasonable time; and the plaintiff’s conduct of the proceedings had been vexatious and involved abuse of process. He noted that the plaintiff had not specified when the costs would be paid or proposed any timetable to trial. He noted that the proceedings related mainly to events from 2007 to 2011; beyond the clear risk of injustice inherent in such delay, the defendants had shown specific prejudice to their ability to defend the case due to the plaintiff’s prolonged failure to advance the proceedings.

Barrett J held that the proceedings should be struck out, as the plaintiff had repeatedly failed to pay the costs due under the costs orders despite having had a reasonable opportunity to do so. He noted the vexatious, oppressive manner in which the plaintiff had at times conducted the litigation, including its resistance to this application. He held that an ‘unless order’ would serve no purpose where there had been non-compliance, where no credible plan for discharging the costs had been put forward, and where even if the costs were paid by the ‘unless’ date one would still be left with the risk inherent in the delay presenting.

Proceedings struck out.

Summary

In this judgment I explain why I will strike out these proceedings.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 13 ^th January 2026 .

1 . By notice of motion of 11 ^th November 2022, CRH and Roadstone have come seeking, inter alia, an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court striking out the within proceedings for abuse of process.

2 . By notice of motion of 2 ^nd May 2025, Kilsaran has come seeking, inter alia, an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court striking out the within proceedings for want of prosecution and/or as an abuse of process.

3 . These proceedings were commenced on 19 ^th November 2010 and the events the subject of the proceedings are alleged to have taken place between 2007 and 2011.

4 . In this application, the defendants ask the court, under its inherent jurisdiction, to strike out the proceedings for abuse of process and failure to prosecute, due to the plaintiff's continuing refusal to pay sums owed under multiple High Court and Court of Appeal costs orders. The plaintiff has not discharged a series of adjudicated costs orders made in favour of the defendants.

5 . By consent order of 14 ^th December 2023, the High Court stayed the proceedings until the plaintiff paid the costs owed. Almost two years later, the plaintiff has paid only a tiny fraction of the costs (5,000 euro to the CRH defendants and 5,000 euro to Kilsaran).

6 . Beyond failing to comply with the costs orders, I note with regret that the plaintiff has at times (as is clear from the chronology appended hereto and the balance of this judgment), pursued these proceedings in a vexatious and abusive manner.

7 . The defendants contend that the court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the proceedings due to the plaintiff's continuing failure to pay the costs owed.

8 . Rather than recount the applicable chronology in detail, I have appended hereto a chronology that was prepared by the first and second defendants and which I accept to be correct.

9 . It appears to be accepted that I may stay proceedings for non-payment of costs, especially were accompanied by unreasonable conduct amounting to an abuse of process. The key issue for determination in these applications is whether I should now strike out the proceedings due to the plaintiff's continued failure to pay the costs owed under the costs orders.

In the course of the proceedings, I was referred to a wide variety of cases, including, inter alia: Morton v. Palmer (1882) 9 QBD 89; Re Wickham Marony v. Taylor (1887) 35 Ch D 272; Macauley v. Minister for Posts and Telegraphs [1966] IR 345, Barry v. Buckley [1981] IR 306, McCabe v. Harding [1984] ILRM 105, Ennis v. Butterly [1996] 1 IR 426, Re Lang Michener and Fabián (1987) 37 D.L.R. 685, Primor v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 IR 459; [1995] IESC 110, O'Keefe v. Kilcullen [1998] 6 JIC 2403; [1998] IEHC 101, Lough Neagh Exploration Ltd v. Morrice (No. 2) [1999] 4 IR 515; [1998] IESC 40, Riordan v. Ireland (No. 5) [2001] 4 IR 463; 2001 WJSC-HC 5691, Vesey v. Bus Eireann [2001] 4 IR 192; [2001] IESC 93, Oury v. Reed [2002] EWHC 369 (Ch), McGrory v. ESB [2003] 3 IR 407; [2003] IESC 45, O'Connor v. Bus Atha Cliath [2003] 4 IR 459; [2003] IESC 66, Superwood Holdings Ltd v. Sun Alliance and London Insurance plc [2004] 2 IR 407; [2004] IESC 19, Gao v. Zhang (2005) 14 VR 380, P.J. Carroll & Company Ltd v. Minister for Health and Children [2005] 3 IR 457; [2005] IEHC 267, McCourt v. Tiernan [2005] 7 JIC 2905; [2005] IEHC 268, Kenny v. Trinity College [2008] 4 JIC 1006; [2008] IESC 18, Grant v. Roche Products [2008] 4 IR 679; [2008] IESC 35, Welsh v. Digilin Py Ltd [2008] FCAFC 149, Kalix Fund Ltd v. HSBC International Trust Services (Ireland) Ltd [2010] 2 IR 581; [2009] IEHC 457, Re Vantive Holdings [2010] 2 IR 118; [2009] IESC 69, Moorview Developments Ltd v. First Active plc [2011] 3 IR 615; [2011] IEHC 117, Treasury Holdings v. NAMA [2012] IR 297; [2012] 7 JIC 3102, Farrell v. Bank of Ireland [2013] 2 ILRM 183; [2012] IESC 42, Keohane v. Hynes [2014] 11 JIC 2001; [2014] IESC 66, WL Construction Ltd v. Chake [2016] 10 JIC 0306; [2016] IEHC 539, Power v. Tesco Ireland [2016] 7 JIC 1103; [2016] IEHC 390, Leneghan International Transport Limited v. Lombard Ireland Limited & Ors [2017] 5 JIC 1208; [2017] IEHC 298, Miranda v. Rosas Construtores SA [2019] 7 JIC 2907; [2019] IECA 237, ER Travel Limited v. Dublin Airport Authority [2020] 2 JIC 1804; [2020] IEHC 62, Miranda v. Rosas Construtores SA [2020] 4 JIC 0907; [2020] IESCDET 51; Ennis v. AIB [2021] 3 IR 733; [2021] IESC 12, Glann Mor Ceibh Teoranta v. Minister for Housing [2024] 1 IR 1; [2022] IESC 40, and Kirwan v. MJ O'Connor Solicitors [2025] 5 JIC 3008; [2025] IESC 21.

10 . In truth, the parties could likely have referred to Kirwan, supplemented that recent and helpful Supreme Court precedent with a few other cases, if thought fit, and left it at that. In any event, from those cases, inter alia, the following principles can be divined (I deal separately with Kirwan later below):

• • The courts' inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings for non-payment of adjudicated costs is well established as a matter of English law. (See e.g., Morton). (I assume the point being made is that a like position presents under Irish law and I accept this to be so).

• • Section 27(5) of the Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 gives the High Court a broad discretion to stay proceedings, including where there is an abuse of process.

• • Courts also possess an inherent jurisdiction to stay or strike out proceedings in cases of abuse of process. (See e.g., Miranda).

• • Under O.63B, r.5 RSC (Rules of the Superior Courts), the court has wide case-management powers, including the ability to permanently stay proceedings where it is just to do so.

• • The power to stay or strike out proceedings for failure to pay costs owed under costs orders aligns with the rationale for interlocutory costs orders under O.63B, r.36 RSC. (See e.g., Kalix).

• • The jurisdiction to stay or strike out proceedings for non-payment of costs is consistent with the jurisdiction to stay proceedings where costs from earlier proceedings on the same cause of action remain unpaid. (See e.g., Moorview; Farrell).

• • The court may strike out proceedings where ordered security for costs has not been provided. (O.26, r.4 RSC; see e.g., Leneghan).

• • This jurisdiction is discretionary, must be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases, and is aimed not at punishment but at enforcing...