The High Court dismissed Noel Stanton’s claim against three solicitors and his mother over funds paid out from a court account in 1983, ruling that the passage of time made a fair trial impossible for one defendant.
Mr Justice Noonan delivered the judgment on 26 November 2018. The application to dismiss the claim was brought by the first three defendants on grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, that delay had prejudiced the defence.
The dispute arose from a 1971 road accident in Cork, when Mr Stanton, then nine, was struck by a lorry owned by Cork Corporation while cycling. His mother acted as his next friend in proceedings against the corporation. Those proceedings were settled for IR£1,250 in 1973, with IR£1,205 invested for him after IR£45 was paid out, apparently for special damages.
Mr Stanton alleged that he did not know about the case or the money until his father’s funeral in December 2014. He claimed he had not sworn the affidavit used to obtain payment from court, that his signature was forged, and that he received none of the money. The judgment recounts that IR£3,092.92 was standing to his credit when payment was sought in January 1983, and that the money was paid out later that month.
The judge said the first and third defendants, who joined the relevant solicitors’ practice in 2015, had no conceivable involvement in the events. Their dismissal was agreed. As to the second defendant, Valentine Turnbull, the judge accepted for the purpose of the application that Mr Stanton knew nothing of the events until 2014. The delay was therefore inordinate but had to be treated as excusable.
The court rejected the argument that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action when Mr Stanton’s allegations were taken at their highest. It dismissed the case instead under the test for delay where the passage of time creates a real risk of an unfair trial. The solicitor who had led the original practice had died in 1999, and files and bank records relating to the events had been destroyed. The judge concluded that the second defendant could not fairly defend himself against the allegations.
The judgment states that the claim against the second defendant was struck out for those reasons. It does not determine whether the alleged forgery, fraud or non-payment occurred.