The High Court allowed a personal injury action against Aer Lingus Group plc to proceed after finding the plaintiff’s delay was both inordinate and inexcusable. The court set deadlines for discovery and trial steps and said it would revisit the airline’s dismissal application if they were missed.
The case was brought by Tommy Byrne, who claimed he suffered a back injury at work on 19 September 2010 while serving a passenger on a flight from Boston to Dublin. He alleged the injury occurred as he placed a meal tray on a passenger’s foldaway table. The allegations had not been determined at this stage.
The proceedings were issued in February 2013, and a defence was delivered in February 2014. The judge said that after the airline requested discovery, the plaintiff effectively took no further steps to prosecute the action for about four years. The airline applied in January 2019 to have the claim dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay.
In an affidavit responding to the motion, the plaintiff’s solicitor said the plaintiff had sustained other workplace injuries that had also led to proceedings, complicating the case and contributing to the delay. The judge rejected that explanation, noting that medical reports and prognoses could help distinguish injuries and assess damages, including future damages. He concluded the delay was inordinate and inexcusable.
The judge then considered the balance of justice. He said the plaintiff would likely be the principal witness and could face questions at trial about the accuracy of his recollection. The claim also included allegations concerning inadequate training and breach of statutory duty. However, there was no suggestion the airline had lost the ability to produce evidence in its defence because of the passage of time. The judge concluded that the balance of justice favoured allowing the action to proceed.
The plaintiff was ordered to make discovery in accordance with the airline’s 3 April 2015 letter by 21 February 2020, serve notice of trial within 21 days after discovery, and comply with S.I. 391 of 1998 by 20 March 2020. The matter was adjourned to 31 March 2020. The judge said he would revisit the airline’s dismissal application if those steps were not taken. The judgment did not decide the underlying injury claim.