The High Court has refused to dismiss a claim over ownership of the race mare My Girl Anna, despite accepting that the plaintiff’s delay in pursuing the case was inordinate and inexcusable.
Mr Justice Meenan ruled on 21 December 2021 that the defendant had not established prejudice sufficient to tip the balance of justice in favour of dismissing the proceedings. The decision concerned only the defendant’s application to dismiss for want of prosecution; it did not decide who owned the mare or who was entitled to the sale proceeds.
The plaintiff alleges that he and the defendant agreed in early 2010 to buy the mare as equal co-owners. He says the horse was sold at Tattersalls Newmarket on 2 December 2013 for £152,000 and that he was not paid his claimed half. He seeks declarations recognising equal ownership and entitlement to half the sale price, as well as an order for payment. Those claims remain allegations, not findings in this judgment.
The proceedings began in January 2014. A defence was delivered in October that year, but no substantive step followed until a notice of intention to proceed in November 2019. The defendant applied to dismiss the case in March 2021. The plaintiff conceded that the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable, leaving the court to assess the balance of justice.
The judge noted that the dispute would turn substantially on a conversation said to have taken place in a public house in January 2010. The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff had told Noel Lawless that the defendant owned the mare. Lawless, who apparently worked at the stud from which the defendant allegedly acquired the horse, died in August 2018. The judge said that evidence might have supported a finding of sufficient prejudice, but considered another matter significant.
Alison Clancy had brought separate proceedings in 2020 claiming a 50 per cent share of the net sale proceeds. Her statement of claim said that she acquired the mare in or around 2010 and agreed to hold it equally with the defendant. The judge reasoned that, if she could prove her claim, she and the defendant could give evidence about ownership, as could the plaintiff. He concluded that the passage of time had not been shown to prevent those witnesses from giving evidence and that the absence of prejudice weighed against dismissal.
The judge suggested that the parties consider consolidating the two cases, or managing them so ownership could be determined at one hearing. He invited written submissions of up to 1,250 words on costs by 21 January 2022 and listed the matter for a costs hearing on 28 January 2022.