The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court order dismissing a Cork property flooding action for want of prosecution, finding that the defendants had not established that the plaintiffs’ delay caused the prejudice relied on to dismiss it.
The appeal concerned an action by Brian Coughlan and Coates Entertainment Limited, trading as City Limits Comedy and Night Club, against the owners and occupiers of a house at 22 St Patrick’s Hill, Cork. The plaintiffs’ premises on Coburg Street lies below the house. They had complained for years of water ingress and sought enforcement of a 2009 settlement that included specified drainage and surfacing works.
The High Court dismissed the action in March 2024 after finding that the plaintiffs’ delay was inordinate and inexcusable. That finding was not appealed. The question before the Court of Appeal was whether the balance of justice favoured dismissal, particularly whether the defendants had shown prejudice caused by the delay.
The defendants relied mainly on the effect of a personal insolvency arrangement entered by Amanda Stokes in 2015. They said it included liabilities under indemnities she had given them and that the plaintiffs’ delay had prevented them from recovering costs and expenses. The Court of Appeal found that the supporting affidavit offered only a bare assertion and did not explain how the arrangement affected recovery.
Documents later disclosed showed that the defendants had obtained judgment against Stokes in 2014 and recovered €212,898.84 through the insolvency arrangement. The appeal court said this undermined their assertion that the delay had prevented recovery. It also found that the evidence pointed to Stokes being unable to pay before the period of delay relied on, and there was no evidence connecting her ability to pay with that delay.
The court also considered alleged prejudice to the defendants’ ability to defend the claim. It found no specific evidence that relevant witnesses or engineers were unavailable or that the defendants faced a concrete fair-trial disadvantage. The defendants’ claims about difficulty selling the property or obtaining insurance were also unsupported by detail, and the High Court had already treated that alleged prejudice as slight.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s dismissal order. It did not decide the underlying dispute about whether the settlement works were properly carried out. On costs, the court said the plaintiffs were presumptively entitled to the costs of the High Court application and appeal, with any final costs order to be addressed separately if either party filed submissions within the stated time. The underlying proceedings therefore remain to be determined.