The High Court has refused to dismiss Doreen Burke’s workplace bullying and harassment claim against Brothers of Charity Services Galway, despite finding that the delay in progressing it was inordinate and inexcusable.
Ms Justice Siobhan Phelan ruled that the balance of justice favoured allowing the personal injuries proceedings to continue. She found the employer had not identified prejudice sufficient to justify dismissal and that no real and substantial risk of an unfair trial or unjust result had been established.
Ms Burke alleges that she was subjected to bullying and harassment at work over a period from 1999 to 2008. She began working for the organisation in 1995 and resigned in April 2008. Her claim concerns alleged treatment by colleagues and workplace events, including disputes about support for staff, sick leave, her return to work and her reassignment. These are allegations, not findings on the merits of the claim.
The proceedings began in the High Court in January 2010. The judge noted a delay of two and a half years in replying to particulars and that no step was taken after the employer’s discovery was provided in May 2018 until the employer moved to dismiss the claim in June 2020. She also found that the employer contributed to delay: it took about three years to deliver a defence and several years to complete discovery, including failing to meet court-ordered timelines.
Ms Burke’s explanations for the later delay included efforts to obtain expert reports and the time taken to secure an appropriate bullying expert. The judge accepted that there had been attempts to move the case forward, but concluded that the explanations did not satisfactorily excuse the overall delay. She also said the claimant had at times been excessively tolerant of the employer’s delays.
The employer’s evidence of prejudice was described as general and unsupported by specific details. No evidence was identified that a witness or other evidence had become unavailable. The judge noted that substantial documentary records existed to assist witnesses and that the employer had contributed to the delay.
The court also granted the employer permission to amend its defence to rely on the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991. The amendment was conditional on the employer paying Ms Burke’s costs of the proceedings from March 2013 to July 2020, excluding reserved and discovery costs. The judgment proposed directions requiring the amended defence within 14 days, any reply within a further 10 days, and a response to the mediation request within 21 days. Unless mediation is pursued, steps to seek a hearing date were to be taken within three months.
The court proposed dismissing the application to strike out the claim and allowing the amendment application on those conditions. It left the costs of the motions to be addressed after hearing the parties. The judgment does not determine whether Ms Burke’s underlying allegations are established.