The Court of Appeal has refused Ray Doyle’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim against Joseph Foley over a share in a stallion, finding that prolonged delays and the resulting risk to a fair trial justified striking out the proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Costello on 8 August 2022, upheld the High Court’s decision to strike out the claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay. The appeal court did not decide whether Foley had mismanaged the stallion or owed Doyle money under their agreement.
Doyle’s claim arose from a 2008 syndicate agreement under which he bought a share in a stallion kept at Foley’s stud farm in County Carlow. At the appeal hearing, Doyle’s counsel said the claim was limited to alleged mismanagement, unauthorised reductions in covering fees and unpaid fees for coverings. Doyle maintained that their agreement included terms beyond the written syndicate agreement, including terms said to arise from an oral agreement or industry practice. Foley disputed those additional terms.
Doyle issued proceedings in January 2013. After some activity in 2014, including an interim injunction application that was later vacated by consent, the case stalled until April 2018. The court found that a further delay followed attempts to remit the case to the Circuit Court. A first remittal motion issued in March 2020, more than a year after the first notice of intention to proceed; a second motion followed in February 2021. The Court of Appeal found the overall period of inordinate and inexcusable delay was five years and nine months.
Doyle relied on the time spent recovering costs from the injunction, ill health affecting him and his solicitor, and confusion in correspondence about remitting the case. The appeal court held those explanations did not excuse the delays. It also found that the defendant’s failure to set the case down for trial or to seek dismissal sooner did not excuse Doyle’s inaction.
The court concluded that a trial would require Doyle and Foley to give oral evidence about what they agreed in 2008. Although documents and accounts could assist, the case was not solely documentary, and the passage of time created moderate prejudice to Foley. The court held that the balance of justice favoured dismissal and refused the appeal. It stated provisionally that Foley was entitled to the costs of the appeal, subject to any application for a hearing on costs within 14 days.