The Court of Appeal has dismissed Sligo County Council’s appeal against a High Court order setting aside the dismissal of Felix Rooney’s workplace injury proceedings. It held that the original dismissal was beyond the High Court’s jurisdiction because Rooney had not breached an order requiring him to provide further particulars.
Rooney’s claim arises from an accident at work on 21 July 2005. The judgment describes his case as alleging that he was electrocuted while standing beside a JCB machine that came into contact with an electricity cable. He seeks compensation for personal injuries and loss.
In May 2009, the council requested answers to four questions about how the alleged electrocution happened, the electricity source, why Rooney was in contact with the JCB and which parts of his body touched it. After reminders went unanswered, the council applied to the High Court for either dismissal of the proceedings or an order directing Rooney to reply. On 24 January 2011, with no one appearing for Rooney, the court dismissed the action for want of prosecution because the particulars had not been provided.
Rooney’s solicitor sent answers in March 2011. The solicitor later attributed the failure to attend the 2011 hearing to an office filing and diary error, which an affidavit linked to alleged sabotage by a disgruntled employee. The solicitor said the delay in seeking to set aside the dismissal was also caused by an office personnel change. The council opposed reinstatement, pointing to lengthy delays and arguing that the explanation did not account for the original failure to answer the request.
On 12 May 2014, the High Court set aside the dismissal on terms that Rooney’s solicitor pay the taxed costs within four weeks. The taxed costs were €11,869.15. The trial judge also said the proceedings should be progressed expeditiously, although that requirement was not included in the drawn order.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the delays on Rooney’s side were lengthy and unacceptable, but found that a request for particulars by letter did not itself oblige him to respond. Under the rules, the council could seek a court order requiring particulars. Since no such order had been made, there had been no default that could support dismissal on that basis. The court said the High Court could have ordered Rooney to provide replies, but lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the claim for failing to provide them.
The court dismissed the council’s appeal. It said the council could consider whether there were grounds to seek dismissal based on inordinate and inexcusable delay. The judgment does not decide that question or the merits of Rooney’s injury claim.