The High Court has decided to dismiss Thomas Padden’s negligence proceedings against solicitors over their handling of a road accident claim, finding that years of unexplained delay and the case’s lack of readiness caused prejudice to the defendants.
In a judgment delivered on 3 November 2023, Ms Justice Bolger said the delay was “inordinate” and “inexcusable”. She concluded that the balance of justice favoured dismissal. The court listed the matter for 29 November 2023 to hear submissions on the final orders. Its indicative view was that the defendants should receive their costs, to be assessed if the parties could not agree.
Padden had instructed the defendants in 2003 to act for him in relation to a road traffic accident earlier that year. They issued a plenary summons in July 2004, but it expired and was not renewed. Negligence proceedings were issued in 2016 and served the following year. A notice of intention to proceed was filed in November 2019, which the defendants said was defective. Padden’s statement of claim followed in February 2020.
The defendants applied to dismiss the case for delay in October 2022. Padden’s solicitor said he had not been aware until 2013 that the handling of his accident claim might give rise to a negligence claim. The judgment records no further explanation for waiting until 2016 to issue proceedings.
The solicitor also said the statement of claim was held back because discovery sought in a related case, John Padden v McDarby & ors, might benefit this case or make discovery a matter of agreement. The judge found there had been no engagement or agreement with the defendants to put the case on hold. Relying on an earlier decision concerning parallel proceedings, she said a party could not unilaterally let a case lapse and later use the related case to excuse the delay.
Justice Bolger found that the defendants bore no responsibility for the delay and that the case was far from ready for hearing. They faced general prejudice in defending allegations about their work in 2003 and 2004, first raised against them in proceedings in 2016, while parts of the claim remained vague. The judge found a causal connection between the delay and that prejudice, which she described as moderate but sufficient in the circumstances to justify dismissal.
The judgment addressed the defendants’ application to dismiss for delay. It did not set out the final orders; those were to follow after the November submissions.