The Supreme Court has dismissed Clare Manor Hotel Limited’s appeal against an order striking out its damages proceedings against Dublin Corporation, now Dublin City Council. The Court held that the company’s delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal because a fair trial was unlikely after the passage of time.
The proceedings concerned the authority’s 1987 refusal of permission for 156 houses on land where the company had previously received permission to build a hotel. The company alleged that the refusal and a later decision by An Bord Pleanála were corrupt. Those were allegations, not findings in this appeal. The Board’s refusal was never challenged, and it was not a defendant in the proceedings.
The company issued its summons in October 1999. Its statement of claim followed in January 2001. After the defendant sought particulars in April 2004, the company did not reply until August 2011. The High Court dismissed the proceedings in December 2013 on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay. The company appealed that order.
The company said it had waited in the hope that the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments would investigate its complaint and provide useful information. The Supreme Court accepted that there had been some reason for that hope initially, but held it was no longer reasonable after developments in 2004, when the Tribunal returned relevant files and its authority to take on additional matters was limited. The Court said the company’s belief could not reasonably continue after that point; in any event, the Tribunal’s public hearings ended in 2008, yet the company waited a further three years to answer the request for particulars.
The Court also found the company had not shown how the Tribunal’s findings could be used as evidence at trial or identified other specific assistance it expected from the inquiry. It rejected the company’s reliance on *Comcast*, where the claimants knew a tribunal would publicly investigate matters relevant to their case and used evidence gathered in that process to identify potential sources of evidence.
The Court acknowledged that the defendant had consented in 2011 to late delivery of the particulars, a factor in the company’s favour. But it considered the overriding issue to be whether a fair trial remained possible. The allegations were broad, the company had not clearly identified the people said to have acted corruptly, and witnesses had died, retired or grown elderly. The Court also said the company had underestimated its own evidential difficulties, including the need to address An Bord Pleanála’s unchallenged decision.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The High Court’s order dismissing the proceedings therefore remained in place. The Court did not determine whether the corruption allegations were true.