The High Court dismissed a €44,317 claim by Midland Animal Collections Limited against Maloney and Matthews Animal Collections Limited after finding that the plaintiff’s delay in progressing the case was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
The claim, brought by summary summons in February 2010, concerned services the plaintiff said it supplied between 15 April and 25 June 2009. The defendant applied to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution and inordinate delay.
In a judgment delivered on 15 June 2018, Mr Justice Binchy said the plaintiff had taken no steps to advance the case after issuing the summons, apart from a procedurally incorrect motion for judgment in default of defence in November 2017. The plaintiff had served four notices of intention to proceed, in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2017. The court calculated the delay, excluding the defective motion, as seven years and nine months. No excuse for the delay had been offered.
The parties’ solicitors had exchanged correspondence before the case began. In a letter dated 2 December 2009, the defendant acknowledged owing €13,862, while also claiming that the plaintiff owed it €10 for each animal aged six to 24 months delivered before April 2009. The alleged counterclaim had not been particularised, and the court had not been shown a reply addressing it.
The plaintiff argued that the case had not been allowed to wither because of the notices to proceed, that its claim had been clearly pleaded from the outset, and that the defendant had not established it would lack necessary witnesses. The defendant maintained that allowing the case to continue would cause at least moderate prejudice, relying on the passage of time and the evidence likely to be required about earlier meetings.
The court noted that the plaintiff’s claim depended on an alleged May 2007 agreement and a claimed amendment at a meeting on 15 April 2009. The defendant denied agreeing to or signing the amendment. Evidence might also be needed about an earlier meeting relevant to the alleged counterclaim. The judge found that the delay created the possibility of moderate prejudice to the defendant and that the defendant might now be barred by the statute of limitations from pleading its counterclaim.
The court therefore granted the defendant’s application and dismissed the proceedings. The judgment decided the dismissal application; it did not determine the underlying claim or the alleged counterclaim on their merits.