The High Court has dismissed proceedings against planning consultant William Murray after finding that the plaintiff’s delay in advancing the case was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
In a judgment delivered on 1 December 2021, Ms Justice Stack ruled on Murray’s application to dismiss the proceedings against him for want of prosecution and delay. The order applied to the second defendant only. The judgment does not say that the court determined the underlying allegations.
Tom Darcy’s claim concerned the proposed development of lands with facilities from Allied Irish Banks plc. Darcy alleged that Murray pressured him and his wife to abandon judicial review proceedings against a local authority, then worked with the bank to take over the development. He claimed the development did not proceed and that he lost potential profits. The allegations included deceit. Murray denied taking over the development or making the alleged representations. He said he had been retained by the bank as a planning consultant.
The plenary summons issued in March 2015, the statement of claim was delivered in November that year, and Murray delivered his defence in February 2016. No further steps were taken in the proceedings. By the November 2021 hearing, nearly six years had passed since the last step. The judge said even the period from early 2016 to the application in late 2019 amounted to inordinate delay. She found that the pandemic did not materially explain the lack of progress in pleadings, particulars or discovery.
Darcy relied on other litigation with the bank, an asserted agreement with it not to progress the case, and serious family bereavements and illnesses. The judge said the other cases had largely concluded by the end of 2016 and did not explain the subsequent inactivity. Murray was not a party to the asserted agreement, which Darcy had raised at the hearing but had not put on affidavit. The judge also concluded that the personal circumstances described did not excuse the delay.
In weighing the interests of justice, the judge considered the serious allegations’ potential effect on Murray’s professional life and the risk that a fair trial was no longer possible. A central allegation concerned a meeting at Fingal County Council offices in September 2009 and what was said there. The judge noted that any trial was unlikely before 2023, about 14 years after the events. Although no specific unavailable witness had been identified, some council employees might have retired or changed jobs. The judge treated that point cautiously, but found the importance of oral evidence and the breadth of the allegations raised real fairness concerns.
The court therefore dismissed the proceedings against Murray. The judgment does not state that the proceedings against the bank were dismissed.