The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by trustees of BOC Gases Ireland Limited’s superannuation fund who sought to have Edward Hiney’s pension claim struck out for delay. The Court said the balance of justice favoured allowing the claim to proceed and asked counsel to seek an early trial date in the High Court.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J. on 27 October 2010, concerned an appeal from a High Court refusal to dismiss the proceedings. The High Court had indicated it would direct an early trial. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed only whether the claim should be dismissed at this stage; it did not decide whether Hiney was entitled to a pension or to a second medical opinion.
Hiney issued proceedings in October 2001. He claims, among other things, that he was eligible for the fund and wrongly excluded from its benefits. His case includes an allegation that he invoked a scheme rule allowing a disputed medical incapacity decision to be referred to another practitioner. The trustees deny that he requested such a referral. They also argue that, by the time of any alleged request, he was no longer an employee or eligible scheme member. The judgment said two letters central to this dispute were not before the Supreme Court.
The trustees argued that the proceedings had been delayed at several stages and that the deaths of two potential witnesses prejudiced their defence. The Court accepted that the overall delay was inordinate and that the period between Hiney’s last step and service of the trial notice was inordinate and inexcusable. It also said there had been delay in discovery, with fault on both sides that was not fully explained. However, it found the time spent pursuing union and Labour Court processes before proceedings began was appropriate.
The Court was not satisfied that the witnesses’ deaths caused significant specific prejudice. It said the central issue appeared to be whether the medical evidence should have been reviewed by a second doctor, rather than the first doctor’s medical opinion. A retired company employee alleged to have made a representation to Hiney was available, the judgment said. The Court concluded that any prejudice did not outweigh Hiney’s right to have his claim heard.
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court requested that counsel mention the case in the relevant High Court list as soon as possible so that a trial date could be fixed.