The High Court has refused to dismiss a professional negligence and breach of contract claim against a solicitor, despite finding that the plaintiffs’ delay in progressing it was both inordinate and inexcusable.
In a judgment delivered on 25 January 2016, Ms Justice Murphy ruled that the solicitor had not shown that the delay impaired his right to a fair trial. The underlying claim remains to be heard; the court made no finding on liability or damages.
Oliver Hughes and Fabola Limited say the solicitor failed to uncover an interest held by C.I.E. in land they bought at Crossguns Bridge, Prospect Road, Dublin, for a licensed premises development. C.I.E. wrote to Fabola in March 2003, stating that about 250 square metres was held under a yearly tenancy dating from 1930 and could be required for railway operating purposes. The plaintiffs claim they acquired only possessory title to that part of the property. These are allegations in the underlying case, not findings made in this application.
The plaintiffs issued proceedings in February 2005. The solicitor sought dismissal for want of prosecution, pointing to the gap between his defence in May 2006 and the plaintiffs’ reply in February 2011. The court accepted that the four-year period after correspondence ended in February 2007 was inordinate. It also found the plaintiffs’ explanation—that a dispute with a co-director who had worked on the development prevented progress—explained the delay but did not excuse it. The plaintiffs’ notice of intention to proceed in May 2010 did not alter that conclusion, as they did not proceed a month later.
However, the judge concluded that the balance of justice favoured allowing the claim to continue. The title documents were available, and liability would largely turn on those documents, expert evidence and legal argument. The solicitor’s concerns about assessing development spending were described as more perceived than real; the court said any genuine prejudice could be considered by the trial court when assessing damages.
The judge also noted that the solicitor had not raised prejudice during the earlier delays. She rejected his claim that the proceedings had damaged his reputation, noting that he was retired with his good name intact. The court recommended that the case, which it considered ready for hearing, receive such priority as was available.