The High Court has refused to dismiss Stephen and Karen Costello’s action against the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána over alleged harassment and intimidation, despite finding inordinate and at times inexcusable delay. It vacated an injunction that had restrained Gardaí from entering the plaintiffs’ home.
Mr Justice Michael White delivered the judgment on 14 October 2014. The Commissioner had brought a motion seeking dismissal of the proceedings for delay. The motion was heard on 14 May 2014, more than eight years after the plenary summons was issued, with the substantive action still not heard.
The Costellos’ 2005 summons alleged harassment, watching and besetting, intimidation, and intentional infliction of emotional suffering by the defendant’s servants and agents. An ex parte injunction was granted on 21 December 2005. On 29 December, the court continued the restraint pending trial or further order, subject to entry under warrant or at the request of a household member. The order also set short deadlines for delivery of the statement of claim and defence.
The judgment recounts a lengthy procedural history involving pleadings, interlocutory applications and an appeal to the Supreme Court. In October 2007, the High Court struck out a substantial number of subparagraphs in the statement of claim; the Supreme Court affirmed that order in February 2010. The plaintiffs served notices of trial from February 2010, and the action was set down in July 2011. The judgment noted that no certificate of readiness had been filed by the time an Inspector swore an affidavit in August 2013.
In an affidavit, Stephen Costello attributed delay to reliance on legal advisers, difficulties concerning counsel, the breakdown of the plaintiffs’ relationship with their original solicitors, and issues following the retention of a new firm. The court said further allegations about events from May 2012 to February 2014 were irrelevant to the delay motion.
Applying the principles in *Primor Plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley*, the judge considered the seriousness of the plaintiffs’ allegations and doubted that actual prejudice would arise in the defence, given the defendant’s considerable resources. He concluded that the claim should not be dismissed, notwithstanding the delay.
However, the judge said urgent interlocutory relief carries an expectation that pleadings will be exchanged promptly so a relatively early hearing can take place. He described the failure to progress the action expeditiously after the injunction as a serious abuse of process. The court therefore vacated the 29 December 2005 order, ending the injunction. The judgment did not dismiss the underlying claim.