The High Court has dismissed a personal injury claim arising from a cycling accident on a package holiday in Lanzarote, ruling that a trial nearly 19 years after the incident could not deliver a just result.
Mr Justice Noonan made the order on an application by the two tour companies to dismiss the proceedings because of delay. He found that the plaintiff’s 12-and-a-half years of inactivity were inordinate and inexcusable, and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal. He also concluded that a fair trial could no longer be held.
The plaintiff, identified in the judgment as Jackie Ennis, was injured on 1 June 1998 during an organised cycling trip. Her solicitors alleged that she had not received adequate instruction or supervision and that the bicycle supplied was unsafe. The defendants disputed those allegations at the time and said the accident was the plaintiff’s fault.
The proceedings began in August 1999. After the defendants delivered replies to particulars in September 2003, the plaintiff’s solicitors said they were reviewing them. The judgment records no further action to advance the case for more than ten years. The plaintiff filed notices of intention to proceed in 2013, 2014 and December 2015, then served a notice of trial in March 2016. A trial had been scheduled for 6 April 2017. The defendants issued their dismissal motion in June 2016. The plaintiff offered no explanation for the long delay, and her counsel accepted that it was inordinate and inexcusable.
The defendants said the delay had left them without evidence from two people connected to the accident: the treating doctor, Dr Antonio Zoido, who had died in October 2015, and a former holiday-company manager, who had retired and no longer remembered the incident. They also said they could not trace the cycling instructors. The plaintiff argued that the bicycle’s suitability could be assessed by experts and that the defendants’ own failure to investigate earlier should weigh against dismissal.
The judge accepted that the defendants had done little to investigate, but found that contemporary statements would not necessarily allow witnesses to answer allegations made at trial. He also treated a 1998 letter from the former manager as preliminary evidence that the doctor might have had relevant evidence about liability. The judge stressed that the letter’s account of what the doctor had said was hearsay and could not prove that account was true.
The plaintiff also argued that the defendants had acquiesced by not seeking dismissal after earlier notices to proceed. The judge rejected that submission, finding their inaction alone did not amount to acquiescence and that they could reasonably wait to see whether the plaintiff intended to pursue the case. He dismissed the claim, finding that either the balance-of-justice test or the fair-trial test required that result.