DWF logo

Search

DWF logo

            Changes in the Irish Courts' attitude to Delay

            This article looks at a recent High Court judgment striking out a multi-million euro claim for delay and what defendants (and their insurers) can learn from it.

            Date: 19/06/2019

            Last year I wrote an article entitled Whether to wake those sleeping dogs? I discussed developments in the Irish case law to strike out proceedings for delay.  The recent judgment of Mr Justice Max Barratt on 3 May 2019 in Mulligan v Wilkie and Flanagan Solicitors is the clearest indication yet that the Courts in Ireland are not prepared to tolerate unjustified delay in litigation.

            The concise judgment outlined the case law that had recently preceded it and, as Barrett J eloquently put it, enough ink has been spilled in the judgments in the just mentioned cases to give the clearest of guidance to this Court as to the principles it should bring to bear in this application, without any need for the Court to expand further.

             

            Background & Delay

            This case related to a claim of professional negligence by the Claimant against the Defendant arising from advice given in 2005/2006. Barrett J had significant regard to the chronology of events that led to the strike out motion for delay.

            He noted that the proceedings were issued over 7 years prior to the issuance of the motion to dismiss and relates to events that occurred between 13 and 14 years ago.  The pre-commencement delay is between 5-6 years.  He also looked at the post-commencement delay, which he broke down into four distinct periods (1) delay in service of the summons…(2) delay in exchange of the pleadings… (3) delay in the discovery process and (4) delays since February 2016 with no steps whatsoever being taken.

             

            The Law

            The Claimant did not dispute that the delay was an inordinate and inexcusable. Barrett J agreed. The sole issue that remained for Barrett J to decide was the balance of justice and the issue of prejudice.  He referred to seven distinct factors which influenced him in this regard:

            1. The best part of six years before proceedings were issued and the Claimant made no intimation of a claim to the Defendant at any time prior to the proceedings being served.
            2. From the outset of the proceedings, the Defendant complained of the Claimant's delay.
            3. Since the service of the Summons, the Claimant had taken no voluntary step to progress the proceedings – every step they took had been done pursuant to a Court Order or in the context of the Motion brought by the Defendants.
            4. This claim of professional negligence had been hanging over the Defendant for a considerable time and had significant impact on its professional indemnity insurance and its professional reputation.
            5. The case would almost exclusively turn on oral evidence – therefore the lapse of time was especially prejudicial.
            6. The case would come on for hearing 14 or 15 years after the events that were the subject of the proceedings.
            7. There was actual prejudice because the Defendants had set out certain witnesses who could give evidence on what occurred back in 2005/2006 were no longer available due to death or emigration.

            Given these factors, Barrett J considered that the balance of justice [lay] in favour of the Court granting an order pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction dismissing the proceedings in the interest of justice and on the grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay and also for want of prosecution on the part of the [Claimant] since the commencement of the proceedings.

             

            Lessons for Defendants

            The most striking aspect of this case however was how a significant number of the factors taken into account by Barrett J when considering the balance of justice and prejudice related to the Defendant's conducted the proceedings. For example:

            1. from the moment the proceedings were served, the Defendant complained about the delay;
            2. the Defendant decided from the outset to take a robust approach to the Defence and therefore it motioned the Claimant whenever he was in default.
            3. the Defendant also monitored the impact the claim was having on their professional indemnity insurance and the availability of potential witnesses so that they could point to actual prejudice.

            Defendants and their insurers should not be afraid to take a proactive approach to professional indemnity claims and advise Claimants that delays in the proceedings will not be tolerated. They should also be willing to incur the cost of seeking Court Orders to keep proceedings on track as this will put them in a much better position to bring strike out applications.

            Finally, High Court judges are becoming less lenient on dilatory claimants. The time is right for Defendants and their insurers to review dormant claims to see whether to bring a strike out application.

            [DWF acted for the Defendant]

            Related people

            We use cookies to give you the best user experience on our website. Please let us know if you accept our use of cookies.

            Learn More

            Your Privacy

            When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. We mainly use this information to ensure the site works as you expect it to, and to learn how we can improve the experience in the future. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.
            Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change permissions. However, blocking some types of cookies may prevent certain site functionality from working as expected

            Functional cookies

            (Required)

            These cookies let you use the website and are required for the website to function as expected.

            These cookies are required

            Tracking cookies

            Anonymous cookies that help us understand the performance of our website and how we can improve the website experience for our users. Some of these may be set by third parties we trust, such as Google Analytics.

            They may also be used to personalise your experience on our website by remembering your preferences and settings.

            Marketing cookies

            These cookies are used to improve and personalise your experience with our brands. We may use these cookies to show adverts for our products, or measure the performance of our adverts.