The Court of Appeal has dismissed Tom Darcy’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to strike out his claim against planning consultant William Murray for want of prosecution, finding no error in the lower court’s decision.
In a judgment delivered on 21 October 2022, Mr Justice Noonan said the claim had been started about five and a half years after the events alleged. After Murray delivered his defence in February 2016, Darcy took no further steps for more than three and a half years, until Murray applied to have the proceedings dismissed.
Darcy alleged that Allied Irish Banks and Murray had pressured him and his wife to withdraw planning-related proceedings and a complaint against Fingal County Council, and to surrender control of proposed property developments. He also alleged deceit, unjust enrichment and conspiracy. Murray denied the allegations. They were claims pleaded by Darcy, not findings made in this appeal.
The dispute concerned developments for which Darcy and his wife had borrowed about €14 million from AIB in 2006 and 2007. Darcy said he was pressed to withdraw the proceedings and complaint after the Council’s 2008 planning decision. He alleged that at a meeting at the Council’s offices on 10 September 2009, Murray told him to withdraw them. Murray said in an affidavit that he had no note of such a meeting but accepted it might have occurred.
Darcy offered several explanations for the delay, including other litigation with the bank, family bereavements and health difficulties. The Court of Appeal noted that the four other proceedings had concluded by the end of 2016, and that the medical report relied on recorded Darcy’s first attendance for depression in December 2019, after Murray had filed his dismissal motion. The court also said there was no evidence that Murray had been told the claim was being held back during negotiations with the bank.
The court held that the three-and-a-half-year period of inactivity was inordinate and that Darcy had not shown it was excusable or that the High Court judge had erred. It said the case would depend on oral evidence about events from 2009, and that witnesses were unlikely to have reliable recollections if the matter proceeded to trial. The court also recognised prejudice to Murray from serious allegations remaining unresolved for so long.
The decision concerns the delay application and appeal; the Court of Appeal did not decide whether Darcy’s underlying allegations were true. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s dismissal in place.