The High Court has refused to dismiss a claim for more than €250,000 over four farming-related loans, despite finding that the plaintiffs had caused inordinate and inexcusable delay in progressing the case.
In a ruling delivered on 11 May 2023, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan said the balance of justice did not favour dismissal. She found that the defendants had not shown specifically how the delay impaired their defence, including how the death of the first-named defendant affected the case.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to repay four term loans entered into between December 2004 and August 2009. The facilities, originally made by National Irish Bank, gave rise to claimed indebtedness of almost €300,000. After the sale of a property charged as security, the plaintiffs said more than €250,000 remained outstanding. These are claims in the proceedings, not findings on the debt.
The case began in 2013. After it was transferred from summary proceedings to a plenary hearing in November 2015, the plaintiffs delivered their statement of claim in January 2016. The defendants delivered their defence and counterclaim in January 2017, following warning letters and a consent order requiring them to do so. The plaintiffs then took no further active step for almost two years while settlement negotiations took place for part of that period. They sought particulars of the defence in December 2018 and later applied to compel replies, which had not been provided.
The second and third defendants applied to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that the first defendant’s advancing age and declining health, followed by his death in April 2022, had prejudiced their ability to defend the claim. The judge accepted that the plaintiffs’ delay was both inordinate and inexcusable, but said the defendants had contributed substantially to the overall delay. She also said the claimed prejudice had not been explained with sufficient specificity, and noted that the dispute concerned documented transactions and that the second and third defendants remained available to give evidence.
The ruling did not decide whether the alleged loans are due, whether the defendants’ pleaded defences succeed, or whether the proceedings had previously been compromised. The judge said the settlement question was not before her for determination and might require an amended defence and counterclaim.
The court declined to dismiss the case at this stage. It said it would hear the parties on a timetable for replies to particulars, steps to regularise representation of the first defendant’s estate, any proposed amended defence and counterclaim, and discovery. The ruling records no final timetable or order on those matters.