The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Brian Millerick against the dismissal of his personal injury proceedings against the Minister for Finance, finding that his delay in advancing the claim was inordinate and inexcusable and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
The appeal concerned a High Court order made on 15 June 2015 and perfected the following day. The High Court had dismissed Mr Millerick’s claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay. In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2016, Ms Justice Irvine concluded that the High Court judge was correct and dismissed the appeal.
Mr Millerick’s personal injuries summons alleged that he suffered serious injuries to his right leg and left knee in a road traffic accident on 28 March 2007. He said an unmarked Garda vehicle, described as a silver Ford Mondeo, swerved in front of his motorcycle, causing him to lose control and fall. Those assertions were allegations, not findings made by the Court of Appeal.
He began proceedings against the Minister and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) in September 2009. The Minister delivered a defence in August 2010. After replies to a request for further particulars were delivered in January 2011, no further steps were taken in the claim against the Minister until the Minister applied to have it dismissed in March 2015.
The plaintiff’s solicitor said the two actions were intended to be heard together and that progress had stalled while awaiting the MIBI’s defence. She also said she had been engaged in negotiations concerning a separate judgment obtained by the MIBI against Mr Millerick. The Court of Appeal found those explanations did not excuse the delay in the claim against the Minister. It noted that the proceedings against the MIBI had been issued on the same day as those against the Minister, rather than in response to the Minister’s defence, and that no step had been taken for five years to obtain the MIBI’s defence.
The court also considered that the claims against the Minister and the MIBI relied on inconsistent accounts of the vehicle’s ownership and driver. It said there was no evidence that the MIBI agreement required Mr Millerick to bring proceedings against the Minister. The court found the Minister had not caused or acquiesced in the delay; mere inactivity by a defendant was not enough to count against it in the balance of justice.
The judgment did not determine whether the MIBI claim would succeed or whether it might face its own dismissal application. The court said Mr Millerick remained entitled to pursue that separate claim, without expressing a view on its likely outcome.