The Supreme Court has dismissed a commercial claim involving more than £2 million after finding that the plaintiffs allowed the proceedings to remain effectively dormant for six and a half years without adequate explanation.
Mr Justice Fennelly agreed that an appeal by Derek Montgomery, Seamus Hand, National Cold Storage Ltd and Nordic Cold Storage Ltd should be allowed and that the claims of Anglo Irish Beef Processors Ltd and DJS Meats Ltd should be struck out for want of prosecution.
The dispute arose from a June 1989 agreement concerning the sale of shares in DJS Meats. By November that year, the plaintiffs were demanding £1,584,857 based on a revised audit of the company’s liabilities and promptly issued proceedings.
The case initially moved quickly. Pleadings were substantially completed by 1990, followed by third-party proceedings, discovery and amendments. A further claim was introduced in 1993 concerning more than £1 million in export refunds sought by the Minister for Agriculture.
The critical period began after June 1994. Between then and December 2000, the plaintiffs took no substantive step in the litigation. They served three notices saying they intended to proceed, but the court held that such notices did not amount to advancing the action.
The plaintiffs pointed partly to separate litigation over the export refunds and difficulties with discovery. Mr Justice Fennelly found those explanations inadequate. The export-refund dispute had been settled in November 1995, while the alleged discovery difficulty produced only a complaint letter in October 1998, years after the discovery in question.
The court also considered prejudice to the defendants. A key witness, Brendan Devine, had died. The passage of time affected memories, while one corporate defendant faced continuing uncertainty in its financial statements because of the unresolved litigation.
Mr Justice Fennelly said the plaintiffs had offered virtually no excuse for the prolonged inactivity. Weighing the overall interests of justice, the Supreme Court concluded that the action should not be allowed to continue.