The High Court has refused to dismiss a contractual claim against Padraig Thornton Waste Disposal Limited despite the death of the company director who was the principal witness to the disputed oral agreement.
John Killeen claimed that he reached an oral agreement with Padraig Thornton in 2001 concerning the acquisition of lands in South Meath and North Kildare for a proposed motor recycling facility and landfill.
Mr Killeen alleged that the agreement entitled him to a share of savings achieved on land purchases, IR£100,000 plus VAT if one landowner contracted to sell, and additional remuneration if another landowner later agreed to sell. The company disputed those terms. It maintained that the only agreement was for €126,973.81 plus VAT for Mr Killeen’s services, which it said had been paid in full.
Mr Thornton died on 29 March 2005. The company later asked the High Court to dismiss Mr Killeen’s proceedings, arguing that his death deprived it of its essential and effectively sole witness to the verbal agreement and left it unable properly to defend the case.
Mr Justice William McKechnie rejected that argument.
The judge distinguished cases where proceedings are dismissed because of inordinate and inexcusable delay. No such delay was alleged against Mr Killeen in this application. The company instead relied on the loss of evidence itself.
The court held that Irish law did not generally permit pending civil litigation to be terminated solely because important evidence had become unavailable through death or other misfortune. A person’s constitutional right of access to the courts and to pursue a recognised cause of action could not ordinarily be displaced by such an event alone.
The judge noted that civil claims can generally survive even the death of a party, subject to limited statutory exceptions. The position was stronger still where, as here, the deceased person was a witness rather than a party.
The company’s application to dismiss the proceedings was therefore refused. The judgment did not decide the merits of Mr Killeen’s underlying contractual claim.