The High Court has refused an application by The National Document Management Group Limited and Deloitte to dismiss William O’Reilly’s personal injury proceedings for want of prosecution. The case may proceed to trial, though the court warned that it would not tolerate further delay and said the parties should seek the earliest available trial date.
Mr O’Reilly claims damages for injuries he says he suffered while moving shredding consoles during work duties. His summons places the accident on 16 August 2005 at Deloitte’s premises on Harcourt Street, Dublin. The defendants said earlier records put the accident in June 2005 and raised questions about its date and location. Those matters remain disputed; the court did not determine the injury claim.
The defendants argued that delays in progressing the proceedings were inordinate and inexcusable and that a fair trial was now at risk. They relied in particular on the death of Mick Naidoo, a health and safety manager for the first defendant’s predecessor, whom Mr O’Reilly says he told about the accident. They also cited the passage of time and the potential unavailability of other witnesses.
Justice Cian Ferriter found that the overall delay was inordinate and that the cumulative inexcusable delay was 32 months. He identified a 15-month period from September 2011 to December 2012, about 13 months from October 2015 to November 2016, and four months after the plaintiff’s new solicitors received his file in June 2018 as inexcusable. He accepted explanations for other periods, including the time taken to obtain medical records and the difficulties securing the file from former solicitors.
The judge also considered the defendants’ role in the delay. Although a February 2015 trial date had been allocated, the defendants sought discovery shortly before the hearing, and the resulting order led to the date being vacated. The judge said the death of Mr Naidoo in March 2017 would not have caused the prejudice alleged if the case had been ready for the scheduled trial. He found that the defendants had overstated the effect of Mr Naidoo’s absence and had not convincingly shown material prejudice from the possible unavailability of two other witnesses.
The court concluded that the defendants could challenge Mr O’Reilly’s account using contemporaneous documents and cross-examination, and that there was no real and substantial risk of an unfair trial at this stage. It refused the dismissal application. The defendants may raise any trial issue that could make a fair hearing impossible; the trial judge retains the responsibility to assess prejudice as the case unfolds.