The Court of Appeal has struck out Framus Limited’s appeal against the dismissal of its competition-law proceedings, finding that years of inordinate and inexcusable delay made a fair trial impossible. It also declared that appeals by Amantiss Enterprises Limited and Wilbury Limited had been struck out by a Supreme Court order effective from July 9, 2014.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on November 10, 2023, dealt with respondents’ motions to dismiss the appeals for delay and want of prosecution. The underlying proceedings, issued in 1996, alleged that cement and concrete companies had engaged in cartel activity and abused dominant positions, harming the appellants’ businesses. Those allegations were not determined in this appeal judgment.
The High Court had dismissed the proceedings in 2012 for inordinate and inexcusable delay. Framus appealed that decision. The Court of Appeal found that no satisfactory explanation had been given for almost four years of inactivity after May 2014, or for a further 22 months after the appeal was listed in May 2018 and the appellants were told how to seek its return to the Supreme Court. The court described the appeal delay as inordinate and inexcusable.
Framus cited difficulties obtaining evidence, lack of funds and health problems affecting director Seamus Maye and his late brother. The court rejected those explanations, finding that the alleged responsibility of respondents for the financial difficulties was unsupported, and that the personal health issues did not excuse delay by the company. It also found cogent evidence of prejudice to the respondents, including the death or unavailability of witnesses and the difficulty of defending claims about events decades earlier. The court concluded that a fair trial could not be conducted.
Amantiss and Wilbury had been placed in voluntary liquidation. The Supreme Court struck out their appeals in 2013 but stayed the order while steps to regularise them could be taken. After the stay was extended to July 9, 2014, no further extension was sought or granted. The Court of Appeal held that the order was therefore effective and unaltered.
The court separately refused Maye’s application to represent the companies without a lawyer, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it. It also declined to refer a question about third-party litigation funding to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The respondents were entitled to the costs of their motions, subject to any party seeking a different costs order within 21 days of receiving the judgment.