The High Court has struck out a former financial services manager’s wrongful dismissal proceedings against New Ireland Assurance Company, finding that an 18-year delay in pursuing the case was inordinate and inexcusable and that a trial now would risk being unfair.
In a judgment delivered on 14 April 2021, Ms Justice Butler granted the company’s application under Order 122, rule 11 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court did not decide whether the dismissal was wrongful or whether the former manager’s allegations about the disciplinary process were true.
The plaintiff began the proceedings in December 2003, challenging his dismissal in September 2002. He alleged that the investigation into a loan taken out by him and his wife was flawed, that the disciplinary process breached fair procedures, and that the factual basis for his dismissal was disputed. The company denied those allegations. The judgment records that the first relief sought—a declaration that he remained employed—was by then stale.
The case had long periods of inactivity. A statement of claim was served in February 2006, but replies to the company’s request for particulars were not provided until January 2012. The proceedings were linked for a time with separate litigation over the loan, then adjourned in April 2012 after the plaintiff’s solicitor came off record. No further step was taken in this case until 2019, when new solicitors came on record and served a notice of intention to proceed.
The plaintiff relied on financial hardship, health difficulties and the absence of legal representation to explain the delay. Justice Butler accepted that he had faced serious personal and financial difficulties, but found that they did not excuse the lengthy periods of inactivity. She said the lack of representation could justify a temporary pause, but not leaving proceedings dormant indefinitely, particularly as the plaintiff had acted for himself in other cases.
In weighing the parties’ positions, the court considered the effect of the delay on the company’s ability to defend the case. The company said at least eight witnesses were identifiable, but some could not give evidence and others had poor recollections of events from around 20 years earlier. The two reviewers who upheld the dismissal were elderly and had poor recollections; the handwriting expert had died. The judge accepted that the passage of time would impair witnesses’ ability to recall and be cross-examined in detail.
The court concluded that the balance of justice favoured striking out the proceedings. It also found a real and serious risk that a fair trial could not be ensured. The order disposed of the plaintiff’s proceedings; it did not determine the underlying dismissal dispute on its merits.