The High Court has struck out a claim over alleged defects in a car after allowing an appeal by finance company MMC Commercials Ltd, ruling that the proceedings had been delayed for too long without adequate explanation.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the judgment on 14 March 2011 in an appeal from the Circuit Court. The appeal concerned only MMC’s unsuccessful application to strike out the proceedings. The claim against the other defendant, Francis Faulkner trading as Faulkner’s Garage, had already been struck out by the Circuit Court in April 2009.
John Quinn, a hackney driver who resides in Buncrana, Co Donegal, said he agreed in March 1995 to buy a new Mitsubishi Lancer diesel from Faulkner’s Garage in Moville for professional use. He alleged that the car had numerous defects, including loss of power and oil leaks, and that its front wiring caught fire in August 1996. The judgment records that Quinn claimed MMC was liable under consumer credit legislation because it had financed the vehicle through hire purchase. Those allegations were not findings on the car’s condition or MMC’s liability.
The Circuit Court proceedings began in February 2001. The judgment records delays by both sides: Quinn’s solicitors took about 18 months to answer a request for particulars, while MMC waited more than four and a half years after receiving the reply before filing its defence in May 2007. A notice for trial followed in September 2008. The judge found that neither side had adequately explained its delays.
Justice Hogan said the delay was inordinate and inexcusable. He was not persuaded that MMC had suffered particular prejudice, noting that its own delay weakened its position and that it could have sought an indemnity from Faulkner’s Garage earlier. He also considered the claimed difficulty locating MMC employees and obtaining an engineering report, in light of the earlier letters warning of litigation.
The judge said the parties’ competing conduct might have cancelled out when weighing their private interests. But the court also had to consider the public interest in using the justice system efficiently and ensuring proceedings reached trial within a reasonable time. He said twelve years had passed before a notice of trial was served in what was described as a relatively routine damages claim.
Allowing MMC’s appeal, the High Court struck out the proceedings. It did so on the basis of undue delay and the public interest in timely justice, while expressly not absolving MMC of responsibility for its own delay.