The High Court has refused Dublin Bus’s application to strike out a former bus driver’s personal injuries proceedings, finding that although the plaintiff’s delays were inordinate and inexcusable, the defendant had not established that allowing a trial to proceed would be unfair.
The proceedings, brought by Ion Lazarenco in 2010, concern two alleged incidents in 2008 and claims of racial abuse, discrimination, bullying and harassment between 2005 and 2009. The plaintiff alleges he was injured when he slipped while trying to repair a panel on a bus and in a separate incident when passengers assaulted him. These are allegations, not findings in this judgment.
Dublin Bus sought to strike out the discrimination-related claims, relying initially on the plaintiff’s withdrawn complaint to the Equality Tribunal, and to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution. The court refused to strike out any part of the claim on the Equality Tribunal ground. It said the defendant had not provided the material needed to compare what was pleaded in the Tribunal with the later court proceedings. The complaint had been withdrawn, and there had been no determination of it.
The judge accepted that the case had remained in the pre-trial stage for years and that the plaintiff had not adequately explained substantial periods of inactivity. But the court also found that Dublin Bus had contributed to the delay through failures to meet procedural obligations and by not taking timely steps to prepare its defence. The plaintiff had pursued motions concerning discovery, replies to particulars and inspection; the court noted that the defendant had not reasonably been able to believe the case was abandoned.
Dublin Bus argued that locating witnesses had become difficult and that the former manager at the centre of many allegations had serious health conditions. The judge accepted there would be general prejudice in a trial nearly 20 years after central events, but found no evidence that the manager’s memory was impaired or that he could not give evidence. Possible arrangements included taking his evidence on commission or providing frequent breaks. The court concluded that a more difficult trial was not, by itself, an unfair trial.
The defendant’s motion was refused. The court directed both sides to take steps to have the case set down for trial as soon as practicable. The judge expressed a provisional view that the plaintiff should receive the costs of defending the unsuccessful motion, with a stay pending determination of the proceedings. The parties could seek a different costs order at a short hearing listed for 22 January 2025. The underlying personal injuries and discrimination claims remain unresolved by this judgment.