The High Court has dismissed a prison officer’s personal injuries proceedings alleging bullying at Mountjoy Prison, finding that the claim remained insufficiently particularised and had not been progressed for more than four years after it was issued.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 1 December 2023, Mr Justice Mark Heslin granted the defendants’ application under section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and under the court’s jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings for delay. The defendants were the Governor of Mountjoy Prison, the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Attorney General and Ireland.
The plaintiff’s summons, issued in July 2019, alleged that he had been subjected to ongoing bullying by Mountjoy governors from around 2010. The judge said it did not give full particulars of the alleged acts, when and where they occurred, who was involved, or each alleged instance of negligence. A stay had been imposed in June 2021 until the plaintiff complied with the statutory requirements, but no compliant amended summons was filed.
The judgment recounts that the defendants’ solicitors first raised the lack of particulars in July 2020 and later sought an amended summons. The plaintiff did not provide one. He also did not swear an affidavit responding to the dismissal motion, despite an agreed deadline and a later court order. His solicitor filed an affidavit describing events and exhibiting correspondence and medical reports. The judge treated that account as hearsay and said it did not explain the delay or establish compliance with the statutory requirements.
Applying the principles in *Primor plc v Stokes Kennedy Crowley*, the judge found the delay both inordinate and inexcusable. He said the plaintiff had offered no evidence explaining it. The court also found moderate prejudice to the defendants because the passage of time could reduce the usefulness of witnesses’ memories and the defendants had been unable to investigate an inadequately particularised claim.
The judge separately found a real risk of an unfair trial or unjust result under *O’Domhnaill v Merrick*, given the time elapsed since the alleged events. He acknowledged that dismissal would cause terminal prejudice to the plaintiff, but concluded that the interests of justice favoured dismissal. The order ended the proceedings; the judgment did not determine whether the alleged bullying occurred.