The High Court has refused applications by three solicitors to set aside renewal of a summons in a former client’s negligence action, or to dismiss the proceedings for delay. The ruling allows the claim to proceed; it does not decide whether the solicitors were negligent or whether damages are due.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to progress earlier proceedings against Agricultural Credit Corporation (ACC), properly join a receiver as a defendant, and correct an error in naming him. He also alleges failures to advise him and prepare a statement of claim. The defendants deny liability and argued that delay had impaired their ability to defend the case.
The earlier proceedings arose from ACC’s appointment of a receiver over the plaintiff’s lands in 1985, when he owed the lender about £50,000. The plaintiff alleged negligence in the receivership and that the lands were later sold at an undervalue. His 1991 action named the receiver’s accountancy firm, but service on the firm and the receiver was set aside in 2001 because the proceedings had not been validly brought against the receiver personally. The court record says a claim against him was by then statute barred.
In 2004, the High Court restricted the plaintiff to one part of his claim against ACC, finding that allowing other aspects to proceed carried a real and serious risk of an unfair trial because the receiver could not recall events. The plaintiff settled with ACC in 2005. He then sought to pursue the present claim against his former solicitors. The present summons, issued in September 2000, had been renewed in January 2006.
The defendants cited faded memories, missing files and the passage of time. The plaintiff’s solicitor accepted that there was no good excuse for the delay between the 2004 judgment and the renewal application, but argued that the defendants had been kept informed while the ACC case was ongoing. The judge said a “wait and see” approach was not a licence to litigate at a snail’s pace, but found that the explanation for holding back the claim amounted to good reason for renewal.
Justice Dunne said the claim against the defendants was not statute barred and considered its central allegations relatively straightforward. The defendants had been told in 2000 that the claim might be pursued and had time to locate relevant files, so the court attached little weight to that ground of prejudice. It concluded that the balance of justice did not require setting aside renewal.
The court refused all relief sought, including dismissal for want of prosecution or inordinate and inexcusable delay. The ruling concerned the renewal and continuation of proceedings only; it made no finding on the negligence allegations.