The High Court has allowed a negligence claim against a firm of solicitors to proceed to trial, refusing the defendants’ application to dismiss it for delay. Ms Justice Bolger found that the plaintiff’s delay between 2020 and 2022 was inordinate and inexcusable, but that the balance of justice favoured allowing him to pursue his claim.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants were negligent in advising him on a personal injuries case arising from a road traffic accident on 28 November 2003. He claims they failed to serve or renew a Civil Bill and failed to sue all relevant parties. The negligence proceedings were issued in 2012, after a letter of claim in October 2011.
The judge identified several periods of delay. The plaintiff first became aware of the alleged negligence around August 2006, but did not issue proceedings until July 2012. The Plenary Summons was served ten months later, and the Statement of Claim followed after a further eleven months; no excuse was offered for those delays. From 2016 to 2020, both sides bore responsibility for delay connected with discovery. The plaintiff accepted responsibility for a further period of inactivity between 2020 and 2022, which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, but did not identify lockdown as a specific reason for the delay.
The defendants argued that the passage of time had made it harder to identify witnesses, including gardaí who might have given evidence about the accident, and that one was in poor health while others had retired. The judge noted that the defendants had known of the substantive claim since 2011, but first contacted Garda HR about witness availability in November 2022, after filing their dismissal motion. She did not consider that letter a genuine attempt to locate witnesses for the defence. She also found that possible prejudice concerning summons servers and medical witnesses could be addressed at trial, including by reference to documentary records.
The judge was not satisfied that the defendants had established specific prejudice caused by the delay. She also noted that the case was not yet ready to be listed for hearing: it had been adjourned from case management. Although the defendants raised alleged non-compliance with Practice Direction HC75, the judge said the direction provided for consequences in costs. The case appeared reasonably close to being ready for trial.
The court’s decision was limited to the dismissal application. It did not determine whether the solicitors were negligent. The judge gave an indicative view that the plaintiff should receive his costs of opposing the motion, subject to adjudication if the parties could not agree, with execution stayed pending resolution of the proceedings. She listed the matter for submissions on the orders to be made on 29 November 2023.