The High Court dismissed Timothy Emery’s claim against Peart & Co Solicitors, ruling that the action was statute-barred. Hanna J. found that Peart & Co’s involvement ended by 1999 and that proceedings against the firm were issued 14 years later, beyond the six-year limitation period.
The judgment, delivered on 12 December 2014, concerned an application by the second-named defendant to dismiss the claim against it under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The firm also sought a preliminary trial of whether the claim was time-barred. The court dismissed the claim against that firm; it did not determine the merits of Emery’s claim against the first-named defendant, Daly Derham Donnelly Solicitors.
Emery alleged that the two firms negligently or in breach of contract failed to progress an earlier action. He had engaged Daly Derham Donnelly to pursue damages against Marina Estate Company Limited and related companies over business equipment and materials he said had been locked inside a compound. Daly Derham Donnelly retained Peart & Co as “Town Agents”. The original proceedings were issued in January 1994 and struck out for non-appearance in July 1999.
Emery argued that he had repeatedly sought to have the original action reinstated and that Peart & Co had misled the first firm about its progress. He relied in part on a letter dated 22 December 1998, in which Peart & Co allegedly acknowledged responsibility for delay in setting the case down for hearing. He also said sustained efforts were needed to obtain information about the case and cited the Law Society disciplinary process as a reason for the delay in bringing proceedings.
The second defendant denied negligence and argued that the claim was barred because the alleged involvement ran from 1994 to 1999, while the present proceedings were issued in April 2014. Its counsel said the letter concerned delay in setting down the case and did not overcome the limitation bar.
Hanna J. accepted that Peart & Co’s involvement did not extend beyond 1999, a point the judgment says both parties accepted. The court found no evidence of fraud that could reset the time period and no other mechanism to extend it. It also concluded that amendment of the pleadings could not change the result. The order was confined to Emery’s claim against Peart & Co. The judgment made no determination of the merits of his claims against Daly Derham Donnelly.