The High Court has dismissed an application by Gerard Scriven to strike out a claim brought by receivers over eight buy-to-let properties, while warning the plaintiffs that further delay could lead to the case being dismissed or the injunction being lifted.
In a judgment delivered on 24 January 2025, Mr Justice Liam Kennedy found that the receivers, Luke Charleton and Michael Cotter, had been guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay. He said they should have brought the proceedings to trial earlier, particularly after the Supreme Court criticised the lack of progress in 2019.
The proceedings began in 2014 after the receivers were appointed over eight properties mortgaged to Bank of Scotland Ireland. The judgment says the associated loan facilities totalled €4.25 million and that no payments had been made since 2013. The receivers sought possession and related relief. An interlocutory order restrained Mr Scriven from interfering with their collection of rent, while the Supreme Court varied the order so the properties could not be sold or otherwise disposed of before trial.
Mr Scriven sought dismissal for want of prosecution, relying on years of delay. The plaintiffs accepted that there had been inordinate delay, including a 53-month period after the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision. The judge said the plaintiffs bore primary responsibility for much of the later delay and had no satisfactory explanation for failing to move the case forward until October 2023. Related proceedings involving Mr Scriven’s wife did not justify putting this case on hold, he found.
The judge also found that Mr Scriven contributed to delay. His defence was delivered more than three years after the statement of claim, and he had not shown concern about progressing the proceedings during the periods of inactivity. The court found no specific evidence that fading memories or other effects of delay would make a fair trial impossible or significantly impair his defence. It noted, however, that the long-running injunction had affected his property rights.
Balancing those factors, Mr Justice Kennedy ruled that dismissal was not justified at this stage. He also declined to vary the interlocutory order. The decision did not determine the underlying dispute over the receivers’ appointment or the loan claims.
The plaintiffs are bound by undertakings given by the second plaintiff and his solicitor concerning future conduct of the case. The judge warned that further significant delay attributable to them could result in dismissal or discharge of the injunction. Mr Scriven may apply again for either remedy if there is further slippage for which the plaintiffs are responsible. The plaintiffs did not seek their costs of the application.