The High Court has refused Irish Life Assurance plc’s application to dismiss three policyholders’ claims over changes to their Lifesaver Plan cover, finding that the balance of justice favoured allowing the proceedings to continue.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Murphy on 6 July 2017, concerns claims brought by Patrick and Paula McNamara, John Tom Conlon and Kathleen Conlon, and James and Margaret Higgins. Irish Life sought dismissal for want of prosecution under the Rules of the Superior Courts and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, citing delay and alleged prejudice to its defence.
The claims arise from policies sold between 1983 and 1989. The plaintiffs allege they were not told before signing that premiums or cover could be reviewed, and say they were not given the policy documents containing the review clause. Irish Life denies those allegations and says the clause formed part of the contracts. The plaintiffs seek declarations, restoration of earlier policy terms and damages. Those underlying claims were not decided in this application.
Irish Life argued that the plaintiffs had taken too long to advance their cases, which were issued in 2004 and reached notice of trial in November 2015. It also said that sales representatives who could give evidence about the original sales were unavailable or could not be identified. The plaintiffs pointed to Irish Life’s own delays, including its failure to answer requests for particulars and the time taken to complete discovery.
The court rejected dismissal under Order 122, rule 11. A notice of trial had been served in November 2015, less than two years before Irish Life brought its application in May 2016, so the rule’s two-year period had not elapsed.
Under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, Justice Murphy found that the proceedings had been delayed inordinately and that the plaintiffs’ delay was ultimately inexcusable. But she also took account of Irish Life’s unanswered requests for particulars, its delay of more than four years in completing discovery in some cases, and its decision to raise delay only after the plaintiffs sought trial dates.
The judge was not satisfied that Irish Life had shown the missing sales representatives would have helped its defence or that their absence resulted from the plaintiffs’ delay. She concluded that the balance of justice decisively favoured allowing the claims to proceed. The ruling addressed only the dismissal application; it did not determine whether Irish Life was entitled to review the policies or whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief they seek.