The High Court struck out a former Westport Textiles employee’s claim against Royal and Sun Alliance Plc because the pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The ruling addressed the claim as it stood at the time of the hearing; the court did not determine the insurer’s arguments about delay.
Peter Kilcoyne’s plenary summons was issued in December 2000 against Westport Textiles Limited, which was in voluntary liquidation. His statement of claim said he worked for the company from 1970 to 1979 and was exposed to excessive noise, resulting in hearing loss.
Royal and Sun Alliance was joined as a co-defendant in January 2005. The amended statement of claim delivered in March that year added the insurer’s name and details but, the judgment said, did not set out the true basis of the claim against it. The court recorded that the claim was understood to rely on section 62 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 and a Supreme Court decision concerning an insurer’s liability as an indemnifier.
The insurer’s motion sought to overturn the order joining it to the case. Alternatively, it asked the court to dismiss the claim for delay, or as frivolous, vexatious, disclosing no reasonable cause of action or amounting to an abuse of process. It also sought relief under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Finnegan P. said the claim against the insurer, as then pleaded, was unsustainable and should be struck out under Order 19, Rule 28. The plaintiff had had from January 2005 to provide an appropriate amended statement of claim but had not done so. The court also noted that the underlying events were more than 25 years old and said the plaintiff was expected to proceed promptly after joining the insurer.
The judge decided to deal only with the pleadings as they stood, rather than consider a proposed further amendment. He said the plaintiff could, if advised, pursue proceedings against the insurer as Westport Textiles’ indemnifier after obtaining judgment in default of pleading against the company. Any such proceedings could face a delay challenge. The court did not rule on whether delay would justify striking out a future claim.
The order struck out Kilcoyne’s claim against Royal and Sun Alliance under Order 19, Rule 28. It did not strike out the claim against Westport Textiles.