The Court of Appeal has dismissed Charles Carroll’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to strike out his claim against solicitor Michael Crawford because of inordinate and inexcusable delay. The appeal judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 3 March 2017.
The claim arose from an injury Carroll said he suffered at work on 25 January 2001, when a fellow employee allegedly struck him in the jaw with a pellet from an air rifle. Carroll later alleged that Crawford had been negligent by failing to issue proceedings against his employer in time. The High Court dismissed the claim against the employer in 2011 as statute-barred.
Carroll began proceedings against Crawford in April 2008. In July 2014, the High Court refused Crawford’s first application to dismiss the claim, despite finding that Carroll’s delay was inordinate and inexcusable. The judge allowed the case to continue because the balance of justice favoured a trial. Carroll’s solicitor had undertaken that the proceedings would then be progressed with all due expedition.
No further step was taken to obtain a hearing date. Crawford’s solicitor wrote in February 2015 asking when Carroll would provide a certificate of readiness and seek a date; the letter was not answered. Crawford brought a second dismissal application in December 2015. The High Court granted it in April 2016, finding that the delay put justice to the hazard.
On appeal, Carroll accepted that the delay was inordinate but disputed that it was inexcusable. His counsel argued that the departure of his solicitor from the firm in January 2015 contributed to delay, that the case was ready for trial and that Crawford had identified no specific prejudice. Crawford’s counsel argued that Carroll had failed to act despite the earlier court ruling and the warning letter.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable, and that no sufficient countervailing circumstances had been offered. It said the solicitor’s departure did not explain the failure to act in the months after the 2014 ruling, which preceded his departure. The court also considered that a trial would require findings about events and instructions allegedly given more than 15 years earlier, with the employer and the alleged assailant no longer parties. It concluded that some prejudice could be inferred and that specific proof of prejudice was not necessary in these circumstances.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled to find that the balance of justice favoured dismissal. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s dismissal of Carroll’s claim against Crawford in place.