The High Court dismissed a claim by Kanes Motors Limited against Opel Ireland Limited after finding that a four-year delay in delivering a statement of claim was inordinate and inexcusable, and that continuing the case risked an unfair trial.
The decision was made on Opel Ireland’s application to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution or delay. The judgment, delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy on 21 February 2011, concerned the delay and resulting prejudice. It did not determine the underlying allegations about the dealership or make findings on their merits.
Kanes Motors had held an Opel dealership for more than four decades before its agreement ended in November 2003. In its pleaded claim, the company alleged that Opel undermined the dealership during the two-year notice period, inadequately supplied vehicles, and failed to appoint it as an authorised repairer after termination. It sought damages, a declaration and an order requiring Opel to appoint it as an authorised repairer. These were allegations, not findings in this ruling.
The proceedings began with a plenary summons issued on 7 December 2005. Kanes Motors served a notice of intention to proceed in January 2009 and delivered its statement of claim in November 2009. Opel applied to dismiss the case in April 2010, after Kanes Motors had also sought judgment in default of defence.
Justice Laffoy did not regard the time taken to start proceedings as inordinate: the case had been initiated within the limitation period. But she found the four years between the summons and the statement of claim inordinate. She rejected the company’s explanation, which included hoped-for settlement discussions and difficulty assessing its losses, and concluded that there was no reasonable explanation for the proceedings lying dormant for more than three years.
The court also accepted that the delay had seriously prejudiced Opel’s ability to defend itself. Several employees involved in the relevant events had left the company, one sales director had died, and it might not be possible to reconstruct relevant files. The judge also considered the claim’s estimated special-damage figures, including €500,000 for vehicle supply and €500,000 for stock parts, too broadly stated to show a reliable assessment. She concluded there was a substantial risk Opel could not properly defend the proceedings, creating a risk of an unfair trial.
The judge found Opel’s conduct was not equivalent to acquiescence in Kanes Motors’ delay and that the balance of justice did not favour allowing the case to continue. She therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The judgment said it was inappropriate to express a view on where the costs of the motions should lie because the full solicitor correspondence was not before the court.