The High Court has refused a State application to dismiss a long-running case brought by ship operators Richard Grant, Gurtel Limited and Lasta Mara Teoranta, despite finding that the plaintiffs’ delay was inordinate and inexcusable.
Ms Justice Pilkington ruled on 26 June 2019 that the balance of justice favoured allowing the proceedings to continue. Discovery had been completed and the case was ready for trial. The defendants had not shown that the interests of justice required the case to be stopped.
The proceedings began in August 2003 and concern decisions affecting the plaintiffs’ vessels and business. The plaintiffs allege that decisions by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources were unlawful or unfair and caused them loss. Their pleadings include claims of misfeasance in public office and breaches of constitutional and European rights. Those claims have not been determined in this ruling.
The defendants sought dismissal for want of prosecution, arguing that the lengthy delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that a trial would be unfair. They pointed to allegations against named former department employees, many of whom had retired or left public service, and said the passage of time could impair their ability to recall events dating to the late 1990s. They also cited vessels that had been scrapped, preventing further examination relating to regulatory compliance.
Grant attributed delays in part to financial difficulties, which he said resulted from the defendants’ actions. He also argued that delay had been shared and that the defendants had not identified sufficient prejudice. The judge found his explanation of his personal and financial circumstances insufficiently specific and rejected the argument that responsibility for prosecuting the case was equivalent between the parties.
The judge also criticised the dissolution of Gurtel Limited in February 2018, followed by its restoration in November, while the plaintiffs’ solicitors were saying the case was ready to be listed for trial. She said that position could not be maintained while the company was dissolved.
However, the State had participated in the litigation process through 2016, when discovery was complete. In 2018, its solicitors asked the plaintiffs not to seek a hearing date while they obtained advice on proofs. The judge treated that correspondence as positive reassurance that the defendants intended to defend the claim. The first indication of an application to dismiss came in October 2018, when the matter was already ready for trial.
Applying the principles in Primor, the judge found the delay inordinate and inexcusable but concluded that the balance of justice favoured a hearing. She refused the defendants’ application. The ruling did not decide the underlying allegations or the plaintiffs’ claims.