The High Court has struck out Sean McAndrew’s claim against solicitor Enya Egan after finding that about three years and four months passed without him taking steps to advance the proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 13 February 2017, Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh found the delay was inordinate and inexcusable. She also granted Ms Egan’s application to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution under Order 122, Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The underlying claim concerned matters said to have arisen while Ms Egan acted as a solicitor in a conveyance of a dwelling house. The judgment addressed the defendant’s motion to strike out the claim; it did not determine the underlying allegations.
The period of delay considered by the court began after Mr McAndrew swore his final affidavit of discovery on 7 October 2013. Ms Egan’s motion issued in November 2015 and was heard in February 2017. The court said the plaintiff had not directly advanced the proceedings during the period in question.
Mr McAndrew said he had difficulty finding new legal representation. His former solicitors had been discharged in May 2013. In an affidavit, he said firms he approached in 2014 and 2015 declined to take the case, and that he was then in contact with another firm. The judge held that a reasonable period to find a new legal team had passed and that he could not indefinitely delay the case while searching for one.
The defendant also relied on prejudice to her ability to defend the claim, including the death in August 2014 of Peter West, described in the judgment as a co-defendant in earlier arbitration proceedings and a potential witness. The judge took that loss into account.
The court considered Mr McAndrew’s complaint that the defendant had taken more than four months to answer a request for particulars in 2012. It found that delay did not form part of a general pattern by the defendant and could not fairly offset the later, substantial inactivity.
The order disposed of the claim on delay and want-of-prosecution grounds. The judgment contains no decision on the merits of the solicitor negligence allegations.