The Supreme Court allowed a plaintiff’s appeal against the dismissal of his personal injuries action for want of prosecution, giving him one week to file a statement of claim. The Court warned that any further delay would expose the action to a “very serious risk” of dismissal.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hardiman on 3 December 2004, concerned an accident on 15 September 1997. The plaintiff issued proceedings in August 2000 and served them in January 2001. Despite repeated requests from the defendant’s solicitors, he had not delivered a statement of claim by the time of the Supreme Court appeal. He said a draft had existed since November 2002.
The Master of the High Court dismissed the claim for want of prosecution in June 2002. The High Court upheld that decision in January 2003, and the plaintiff appealed again. The Supreme Court described his delay as “inordinate” and “inexcusable”; those points were not contested.
For the plaintiff, counsel argued that the case should continue in the interests of justice, relying on the balance-of-justice approach in earlier cases. Counsel also said the matter would proceed on an assessment-only basis because the vehicle’s owner had already received damages from or on behalf of the defendant. The judgment records that this assertion was not contradicted.
The Court noted changes to the Rules of the Superior Courts concerning failures to deliver a statement of claim, growing concern about the unfairness of deciding cases long after events on witness testimony, and the obligation to determine civil rights and liabilities within a reasonable time. It cautioned that earlier authorities allowing cases to proceed despite delay might not provide an easy escape from its consequences.
In the circumstances, particularly the uncontradicted assertion that the case would proceed on assessment only, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and substituted an order allowing one week from the judgment date to file the statement of claim. It did not dismiss the action or determine the underlying personal injuries claim. The Court warned that further delay in any step could put the action at serious risk of dismissal.