Neutral Citation No:  NICh 25
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
"As there are no High Court proceedings pending, and to protect my interests in this land … my instructions are that my application for the entry of inhibitions is processed without further delay."
Evidence of the respondent
Evidence of the applicant
Relevant legal principles
(a) When a party has been guilty of intentional and contumelious delay. By this is meant disobedience to a peremptory order of the court or conduct amounting to an abuse of the process of the court.
(b) (i) Where there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of the plaintiff or his lawyers, and
(ii) Such delay will give rise to substantial risk that it is not possible to have a fair trial of the issues in the action or such as is likely to cause or to have caused serious prejudice to the defendants either as between themselves and the plaintiff or between each other or between them and a third party. These principles were approved by Lord Diplock in Birkett v James  2 All ER 801 at page 805A-C.
(a) In respect of the unregistered land the applicant applied to the Land Registry to be registered with possessory title on 7 August 2007. This application was dismissed on 11 March 2008.
(b) In respect of lands in Folio 20044 County Tyrone the applicant applied to Land Registry in February 2008 to be registered with possessory title. This application was abandoned by the applicant.
(c) In respect of Folio 2974 County Tyrone the applicant applied to Land Registry in September 2008 to be registered with possessory title. This matter was referred to the County Court by the Land Registry. The application was not heard by the County Court as the applicant failed to lodge the appropriate papers.
"I am of the opinion that the fact that the limitation period has not yet expired must always be a matter of great weight in determining whether to exercise the discretion to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where no question of contumelious default on the part of the plaintiff was involved; and in cases where it is likely that if the action were dismissed the plaintiff would avail himself of his legal right to issue a fresh writ, the non-expiry of the limitation period is generally a conclusive reason for not dismissing the action that is already pending."
Further Lord Edmund Davies at page 817J:
"Such being the law as I understand it, I respectfully concur with my noble and learned friend, Lord Diplock, that, where there appears any likelihood that a plaintiff will issue a second writ, the case must be quite exceptional (and difficult to imagine) where the court should within the limitation period dismiss an action simply for want of prosecution."