The High Court has refused an application to dismiss a defamation claim for want of prosecution, allowing the case to proceed despite what the judge described as significant delays by both sides.
The claim concerns an alleged statement at a 15 May 2004 annual general meeting of Ballinagare Community Centre. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, who chaired the meeting, called her “nothing but a thief and a pilferer” or words to that effect. The defendant denies liability in a defence that had included a claim of qualified privilege; that paragraph was later deleted by consent. The defamation claim itself was not decided in this judgment.
The defendant sought dismissal under Order 122, rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The plenary summons was issued in August 2005. The judgment records delays by the defendant in delivering his defence and responding to a request for particulars, followed by a 32-month period from January 2009 in which the plaintiff took no step to advance the action. The defendant’s dismissal motion, issued in May 2012, came on for hearing in March 2015.
Mr Justice Noonan found the plaintiff had given no credible excuse for her 32-month delay, which he regarded as both inordinate and inexcusable. The plaintiff had cited caring responsibilities before her mother’s death in 2008 and a change in junior counsel in 2011. The judge said the first explanation predated the delay in question and that the counsel change could explain, at most, minimal delay.
However, the judge said most of the delays were attributable to the defendant. He also found no evidence of actual prejudice to the defendant from the delay. The defendant referred to the recent death of a meeting attendee, but his counsel conceded that no specific prejudice was alleged from that death and there was no evidence that the attendee had been asked about the events or remembered them.
Balancing the parties’ positions, the court concluded that the plaintiff should be permitted to pursue her claim. It dismissed the defendant’s application, but did not rule on whether the alleged words were spoken or whether they were defamatory. The judge said he would discuss a timetable with counsel and take case-management measures to bring the case to trial without further delay. He added that the judgment did not prevent the defendant from relying on any actual prejudice caused by delay in the case ultimately coming to trial.