The High Court has dismissed a solicitor’s defamation proceedings against ACC Loan Management Designated Activity Company after finding that the delay in advancing the case was inordinate and inexcusable and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan said it took about five years for the plaintiff to deliver her statement of claim after issuing the proceedings in January 2014. She gave no explanation for the delay beyond denying that it was inordinate or inexcusable, the judge said. He also found no action by the bank had caused or contributed to the delay.
The case arose from a dispute over undertakings given by the plaintiff and her former partner, Orla Cummins, in connection with loans made by the bank to a client of a solicitors’ practice. The judgment recounts that the bank later complained to the Law Society about Ms Cummins’s conduct after she contacted Gardaí during a dispute over title documents. The bank withdrew that complaint.
The bank subsequently brought High Court proceedings seeking, among other relief, declarations that the plaintiff, Ms Cummins and Anthony Barry were guilty of misconduct for failing to comply with the undertakings. The High Court dismissed that claim as an abuse of process. On appeal, the Court of Appeal said the High Court had no original jurisdiction to declare solicitors guilty of misconduct, and described aspects of the bank’s conduct as inappropriate and its allegations against Ms Cummins as false. The bank did not appeal the decision concerning the plaintiff.
In the present case, the bank applied to dismiss the defamation proceedings for want of prosecution and to substitute ACC Investments Ltd as defendant. Justice Meenan said the plaintiff was seeking to defend her professional reputation. He noted that the claim might face a defence of absolute privilege because the complaints related to court proceedings, but made no determination on that issue.
The bank said its structure and business had fundamentally changed and that staff involved in the events had left. The judge accepted that the resulting doubt about their availability to give evidence amounted to marginal prejudice. He concluded that the bank was entitled to the relief it sought and dismissed the proceedings.
The judge’s view on costs was provisional: he proposed that the plaintiff receive the costs of drafting and issuing her proceedings, with no order as to costs on the bank’s motion. He invited written submissions of up to 1,500 words by 9 December 2022 and said he would list the matter for final orders on 19 December 2022.