The High Court has struck out Eamonn Murray’s claim against three insurance and pension companies, finding that his pleaded case disclosed no cause of action and that his court proceedings replicated a pension dispute still subject to arbitration.
Mr Justice Ryan made the order under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The ruling did not decide whether Mr Murray was entitled to an ill-health pension. The judgment said that question remained for arbitration, which had not been brought to a conclusion.
Mr Murray’s claim arose from the rejection of his illness pension application in 1994. He had worked for the first defendant since 1979 and was diagnosed with Ménière’s disease in 1986. After a road traffic accident in July 1992, he was absent from work for 61 working days. The first defendant wrote in March 1994 that he was being released from employment due to illness and could apply for a pension. He applied later that month and left his job on 31 March.
The first defendant rejected the application in May 1994, saying the medical evidence did not establish sufficiently serious and long-term ill-health for the pension. Mr Murray sought arbitration and served points of claim in February 2000, but no hearing followed. His solicitor sent letters to the second and third defendants’ solicitors between 2001 and 2005, according to the judgment’s chronology. Mr Murray later corresponded with the second and third defendants. He issued court proceedings in August 2010, alleging, among other things, that the defendants had failed to progress arbitration and had misrepresented their position.
The defendants asked the court to strike out the action, arguing that it was time-barred, abusive, delayed and unsupported by a cause of action. They also claimed that the delay caused prejudice, including because former employees who might have been witnesses were unavailable and records were scarce. Mr Murray said he had repeatedly tried to advance the arbitration and had been led to believe it would proceed. He argued that responsibility for the delay and the parties’ conduct required oral evidence.
The judge concluded that Mr Murray had not explained why he failed to use the arbitration legislation to secure an arbitrator or move the arbitration forward. He also found that the claim did not identify a legal basis for liability arising from failures to answer correspondence, even assuming the pleaded facts were true. The delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the judge said, and the defendants had claimed prejudice. The court therefore struck out the claim; it did not determine the underlying pension entitlement.