The High Court has dismissed Maura Lane’s personal injury proceedings against Enterprise Ireland after finding that more than six years of post-commencement delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that the passage of time created a real risk of an unfair trial. The court has not determined whether the workplace allegations were true. It invited the parties to agree the precise form of the order, including costs, by 16 October 2023; its view on costs was preliminary.
Lane’s claim concerned alleged harassment, bullying, unreasonable treatment and excessive workload between 2008 and December 2012, when she was employed by Enterprise Ireland. The company denied the claim and pleaded, among other matters, that it was statute-barred and that Lane had failed to bring her concerns to its attention adequately. Those issues were not decided in this application.
The proceedings began in June 2014. The company delivered its defence in January 2015 and sought particulars the following month. Lane’s replies were delivered in January 2016, more than 11 months later. She took no further formal step to advance the case until March 2021, when updated particulars and a request for voluntary discovery were served. The judge calculated the cumulative post-commencement delay attributable to Lane at more than six years, allowing her three months’ credit for preparing the replies.
Lane and her former solicitor offered explanations including difficulty obtaining workplace documents and an expert report, personal and housing pressures, counselling, and the solicitor’s practice and health difficulties. The judge found these did not explain or excuse the delay. He noted that Lane’s solicitor had said in letters in 2016 and 2017 that a notice of trial would be issued, and in 2019 that updated particulars would follow, but those steps were not taken as promised.
The judge said a trial would depend substantially on oral evidence about conversations, complaints and workplace events, many of them not tied to specific dates. The alleged events began in 2008, and a trial could not take place before the latter half of 2024. The judge found that the delay had likely reduced the reliability of witnesses’ memories, causing at least moderate prejudice and a significant risk of an unfair trial or unjust result. He did not find that the company had proved witnesses would be unavailable.
Applying the Primor test, the court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable and the balance of justice favoured dismissal. It also concluded that the separate O’Domhnaill principles required dismissal because of the real and serious risk of an unfair trial or unjust result. The order’s final form and costs remained to be settled after judgment.