The High Court dismissed Catherine and Liam Honahan’s claims against three solicitor defendants after finding that years of inaction had made the delay in prosecuting the case both inordinate and inexcusable.
In a judgment delivered on 8 May 2018, Ms Justice Murphy ruled that the balance of justice favoured dismissal. She said the court did not need to decide the separate question of whether delay had made a fair trial impossible, but observed that the age of the disputed conversations and meetings would put justice at hazard if the claims proceeded.
The dispute arose from the Honahans’ 1995 purchase of a site and house at 43 Ferndale, Carrigaline, County Cork. They alleged that the title they received covered less land than their contract provided for, and that public water and sewer pipes beneath or beside the property had not been disclosed. Those allegations were disputed. The judgment did not determine whether the solicitors were negligent or whether the Honahans’ underlying claims were valid.
The court said the plaintiffs’ solicitors had identified potential defendants in letters sent in August 2007, but later issued proceedings against people and firms the judgment said had no involvement in the transaction. The court characterised the approach as following insurance cover rather than the parties who might have liability. An amended summons issued in 2011 also named the applicants in capacities the court found were incorrect. The court noted that the original summons had expired in 2008 without being renewed.
The case had been underway for more than ten years by the time the dismissal applications were heard in November 2017, yet remained far from ready for trial. Among other delays, a statement of claim had not been delivered to two of the applicants despite their request in 2013. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ explanations, including that they had been resolving issues involving another defendant and needed to complete each stage of the case against all defendants together.
Justice Murphy considered that the delay itself supported an inference of prejudice. She also cited the risk to the applicants’ professional reputations, the collapse of the company said to bear primary liability, and the difficulty of resolving disputed conversations from more than 20 years earlier through witness testimony. The court found the plaintiffs had not produced evidence of weighty circumstances that justified allowing the claims to continue. It therefore dismissed the claims against the three applicants on delay grounds.