The High Court refused an application by Declan Doyle to strike out Vincent Kelly’s personal injury case over a 1994 motorcycle crash, despite finding that the proceedings had been delayed in an inordinate and inexcusable way. The court said a fair adjudication remained possible and made no order for costs because both parties were at fault for delay.
Kelly was a pillion passenger on Doyle’s motorcycle when it collided with a tractor on 26 July 1994. Kelly suffered serious injuries and lost a leg. Doyle was later convicted of careless driving after appealing a dangerous driving conviction. At the appeal, the Circuit Court found that Doyle had taken a blind bend too fast and lost control, while the tractor was on its correct side of the road.
Kelly issued proceedings in December 1996 against Doyle and State defendants. He sought damages from the State over whether motorcycle riders should have been required to insure passengers against injury. Doyle entered an appearance in January 1997 but never filed a defence. Kelly brought a motion for judgment in default, and three weeks were allowed for a defence; none was filed.
The case included a dispute over the State defendants’ obligation to require insurance for pillion passengers. The High Court refused Kelly’s discovery application in 2000, and the Supreme Court upheld that order in November 2003. The judgment noted that the State claim was considered unlikely to succeed at one point, but later litigation was said to offer some prospect of success by analogy. The judgment did not decide the State claim.
Doyle argued that the long delay, his discontinued separate claim against the tractor driver and the serious physical and psychiatric injuries he suffered in a 2006 road accident had impaired his ability to defend himself. The judge found no clear evidence that those events made an adequate defence impossible. Doyle’s evidence in the careless driving proceedings showed a clear recollection of the crash up to the point when he saw the tractor, and he had then given detailed evidence under cross-examination. The judge also said any memory loss or inability to concentrate had not been proved.
The parties disputed what had been said during a drive together in 2007 and in a telephone call. The judge could not resolve those allegations on affidavit evidence without cross-examination. He said formal court steps under the Rules were the appropriate way to end or progress litigation, and that statements that the case was over would need to be clearly proved.
The court found delay by both sides: Doyle had not filed a defence or moved earlier to dismiss the case, while Kelly had not pressed to secure a defence and move the case towards trial. The judge dismissed Doyle’s strike-out application. He declined to award costs to either side.