The High Court dismissed De Braam Mineral Water Company Limited’s claim over alleged contamination of a well after finding that the company had delayed in prosecuting its case and had not provided a satisfactory excuse. The court made no order for costs in the defendants’ favour, either for the motions or the action.
The company alleged that a mineral-exploration borehole drilled about 30 metres from its wells in County Meath contaminated its water source. It claimed the drilling contractor and the company that instructed it failed to prevent damage and properly disinfect the borehole. The company also alleged negligence by State defendants involved in granting the prospecting licence, including failures to impose protective conditions, warn the company or supervise the work. These were allegations; the judgment does not determine whether contamination occurred or who would have been liable.
The defendants applied to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution. They argued that the delays were inordinate and inexcusable and that the passage of time would make it difficult to defend the case, which depended on evidence about the drilling, the defendants’ knowledge and the company’s alleged losses. The company argued that the defendants’ own delays contributed and cited financial difficulties and problems obtaining expert advice. It accepted that its delay in pursuing the second defendant was inordinate and inexcusable.
Justice Hedigan identified two main periods of inactivity: five years after the early steps in 2000 and 2001, followed by a further period of about two and a half years after the case was revived in 2006. He held both periods were inordinate. The defendants’ failure to press for replies to particulars and their own delays went some way towards explaining the inactivity, but did not provide a satisfactory excuse. The company’s references to limited resources and difficulty finding experts were too vague.
In weighing the balance of justice, the judge found a substantial risk that the defendants could not defend the claim as they wished. The case would require evidence about what happened during the drilling and what relevant investigations and knowledge the defendants had. A former employee of the drilling contractor, identified in the judgment as Mr Jardine, had left the company and was living abroad; the judge also cited the difficulty of recalling events more than 12 years earlier.
The court therefore dismissed the claim for want of prosecution. The ruling addressed whether the action could proceed after the delay; it did not decide the underlying contamination allegations or award costs to the defendants.