The High Court has refused an architectural technician’s application to strike out a negligence claim over a certificate issued in 2008 concerning commercial buildings in Dunmore, County Galway. The ruling leaves the claim to proceed; it does not determine whether the technician was negligent or liable.
The plaintiff alleges that the technician’s certificate failed to alert him that parts of the buildings extended beyond land he owned. The technician had certified that the development complied with retention planning permission and that the property and essential services were within the area shown on an accompanying map.
The technician argued that his retainer was limited to checking compliance with planning permission, not identifying property boundaries, and that the certificate did not cover private rights. He sought to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action or being bound to fail, and also argued that delay and want of prosecution justified dismissal.
The court rejected the first grounds at this stage. It said a 2020 expert report supporting the plaintiff’s allegation provided a basis for a stateable professional-negligence claim. The scope of the technician’s retainer and the meaning and effect of the certificate and its map would have to be resolved at trial. The court noted it had not been provided with the map.
On delay, the court found no culpable delay before proceedings began in 2014, taking account of evidence about the plaintiff’s health and other litigation. The action initially progressed, with pleadings completed by May 2015. Both the plaintiff and technician delayed making agreed discovery until 2018.
The court found the delay after 2018 excusable. The plaintiff could not set the case down for hearing while motions by other defendants to strike out the claims against them remained unresolved. The court also took account of the technician’s decision to bring his own strike-out motion in November 2022, about three years after similar motions by other defendants.
Even if the delay were inordinate and inexcusable, the court said the balance of justice favoured letting the claim proceed. It found no forensic prejudice preventing the technician from defending himself: the relevant documents remained available, and the central issues were expected to turn largely on expert evidence. The court accepted that the ongoing case had caused reputational harm, some loss of work, higher insurance premiums and stress, but said those effects did not, without forensic prejudice, justify striking out the claim.
The court refused the relief sought. It directed the parties to provide written submissions within two weeks on the final order, costs and any other matters, and listed the case for mention on 8 February 2024. The judgment does not record the eventual terms of the final order or any decision on costs.