The High Court has refused to dismiss a company’s claim over helicopter repair, maintenance and hangarage charges, despite finding that the company’s delay in advancing the case was inordinate and inexcusable.
In a judgment delivered on 21 May 2021, Mr Justice Meenan ruled that the defendant had not established prejudice sufficient to tip the balance of justice in favour of dismissing the proceedings. He listed the matter for mention on 7 October 2021 to fix a hearing date and reserved the costs of the dismissal application to the trial.
Emerald Helicoptor Consultants Limited began the proceedings by summary summons in August 2013. It initially claimed €127,416.29, alleging that the sum was due under an agreement for repair, servicing, maintenance and hangarage of the defendant’s helicopter. A later statement of claim increased the amount sought to €153,984.49. The defendant served a defence and counterclaim in January 2015.
The case was remitted to a plenary hearing in October 2014, with a court-ordered timetable for pleadings and discovery. The judgment records that the defendant completed discovery in January 2017 and that settlement efforts broke down on 30 March 2017. The judge treated that date as the start of the relevant delay because the defendant had acquiesced in the earlier period of delay.
Between the breakdown of settlement efforts and the defendant’s dismissal motion in February 2020, the plaintiff effectively took no steps to prosecute the action, the judge found. He rejected as unreasonable the explanations that the plaintiff’s director had been abroad for short periods on work and that the plaintiff had been waiting for the defendant to identify its senior counsel before completing a certificate of readiness.
The defendant argued that the passage of time had hindered the availability of witnesses and weakened the plaintiff’s ability to recall events. The judge said this did not establish even moderate prejudice. The defendant had not provided evidence from the defendant about any memory problem; most potentially necessary witnesses were not identified, and no specific evidence of serious availability difficulties was given. The judge also noted the defendant’s acquiescence in delay before March 2017 and that the issues had been addressed in affidavits during an earlier summary judgment application.
The court therefore refused the application to dismiss. The judgment did not decide the underlying claim or counterclaim. The parties could make written submissions on costs within 14 days if they sought a different order.