The High Court has dismissed a tenant’s personal injury claim against his former landlord, finding that years of unexplained delay made it unfair for the case to proceed to trial.
In a judgment delivered on 6 July 2022, Mr Justice Heslin heard the tenant’s appeal against a Circuit Court order dismissing the proceedings for want of prosecution. The High Court considered the appeal afresh, in a de novo hearing.
The tenant alleged that the landlord was responsible for injuries sustained during an incident at his Dundrum apartment in September 2008, when the landlord and others gained access after the door was barricaded and its lock removed. The landlord disputed the account. The judgment set out conflicting affidavit evidence, including disagreement about whether the tenant was warned before the lock was removed and what happened when those outside entered. The judge did not decide which account of the incident was correct.
The proceedings were issued in June 2011. After the landlord delivered a defence in June 2012, no formal step was taken to advance the case until updated injury particulars were served in October 2017. A motion concerning a certificate of readiness followed in November 2020. The judge found the delay from 2012 to 2017, and the further delay after 2017, to be inordinate and inexcusable.
The court also found prejudice to the landlord. The locksmith who attended could not be identified, one witness could not be contacted, and efforts to contact a Garda sergeant who had attended had not produced a reply. The judge said witness memories were likely to have deteriorated over the 14 years since the incident and concluded that oral evidence would be central to resolving the disputed events.
Applying the principles in *Primor* and *O’Domhnaill*, the judge concluded that the balance of justice favoured dismissal and that requiring the landlord to defend the claim would create a real risk of an unfair trial. The High Court therefore granted the landlord’s request to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution. It did not decide the landlord’s alternative request to dismiss the claim as frivolous or bound to fail. The tenant’s motion concerning the certificate of readiness fell away.
The judgment directed the parties to correspond about the form of the order. The judge’s preliminary view was that costs should follow the event; if the parties could not agree, short written submissions were to be filed within 14 days.