The High Court has refused Guinness UDV Ireland’s application to dismiss pension proceedings brought by retired employee Owen Traynor, allowing the case to continue without deciding the substance of his pension claim.
In a judgment delivered on 24 November 2015, Mr Justice Max Barrett rejected Guinness’s arguments that the proceedings should be struck out for delay, under Order 122, rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, or because the time taken would prevent a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Traynor worked for Guinness for 35 years before accepting voluntary redundancy in April 2002. He claims that verbal assurances were made about his pension arrangements as part of the redundancy package and that a letter Guinness sent in May 2002 did not reflect those assurances. Those claims remain disputed and were not decided in this application.
The court reviewed the history of the dispute, including settlement discussions between 2009 and 2010, renewed litigation activity from 2010 to 2012 and a period of little or no progress from late 2012 to September 2014. The judgment attributed that later inactivity to the serious illnesses of the two principal partners at Mr Traynor’s solicitors’ firm. Guinness applied to strike out the proceedings in April 2015; its application was heard on 16 November.
Applying the established test for dismissal due to delay, the judge concluded that the delay was neither inordinate nor inexcusable. He also considered the balance of justice, finding Guinness’s claims of disadvantage general and unconvincing. The company said some people involved in the redundancy discussions had left its employment and that delay had affected its ability to obtain documents. The court noted that Guinness had known of Mr Traynor’s concerns by January 2003 and that the judgment did not establish that former employees were unavailable or had been contacted.
The court also declined to dismiss the case under Order 122, rule 11, despite a late notice of intention to proceed. It found no apparent prejudice from the procedural breach and noted that the notice had since been served. The judge was not satisfied that Guinness would be unable to secure a fair trial or that the proceedings’ timeframe was unreasonable.
The court declined all relief sought in Guinness’s application. The pension dispute itself remains unresolved.