The Court of Appeal has dismissed Anthony Fitzpatrick’s appeal against a High Court refusal to strike out proceedings brought by AIG Europe Limited over an alleged €250,000 debt. The appeal court left the proceedings in place; it did not determine whether the debt is ultimately owed.
AIG issued a summary summons on 14 September 2012, seeking payment under an agreement concluded on 23 February that year. The judgment says the agreement required Fitzpatrick to pay €250,000 within six weeks to AIG’s predecessor, Chartis Europe Limited, and that the sum was not paid. The claim concerns the enforceability of that agreement, whose validity Fitzpatrick did not challenge on the appeal, though he may raise issues in defending the proceedings.
The summons was not served within the time allowed. In January 2015, the High Court made an ex parte order extending time for renewal and allowing substituted service at addresses in County Clare and Limerick City. Service was effected on 6 February 2015. AIG took no further step to progress the case until it served a notice of intention to proceed in May 2017. Fitzpatrick entered an appearance in June 2017 and applied to strike out the case for delay and set aside the renewal order.
The High Court refused that application in March 2018. It accepted that there had been delay, but held that Fitzpatrick had not established prejudice. The Court of Appeal said the High Court judge had proceeded on the assumption that the delay might have been inordinate and inexcusable, without formally deciding those questions, before considering the balance of justice.
Applying the principles in *Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley*, the appeal court said a party seeking dismissal must establish that delay was both inordinate and inexcusable. The court then weighs whether the balance of justice favours allowing the case to proceed. Prejudice must be demonstrated with sufficient detail, and the court considered the documentary nature of the dispute relevant.
The judgment noted Fitzpatrick’s assertion that his financial position had worsened and his references to separate litigation, but found he had not explained how these matters materially impaired his defence. It also found that he contributed to delay by waiting more than two years after service to enter an appearance. No unavailable witness or other specific threat to a fair trial was identified.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the refusal to strike out AIG’s proceedings. The underlying claim remains to be determined.