The High Court has dismissed a former Wexford County Council worker’s bullying and harassment claim after finding that years of delay were inordinate and inexcusable and had left the council facing significant prejudice.
In a judgment delivered on 29 January 2019, Mr Justice Noonan ruled on the council’s third motion to dismiss the case for delay. The court found that the balance of justice fell firmly in favour of dismissal, particularly because the plaintiff had failed to honour an undertaking given in 2012 to bring the case on for hearing at the earliest opportunity after receiving requested documents.
The plaintiff, who had worked for the council as a general operative, alleged in his statement of claim that he was bullied, harassed and intimidated by his supervisor, Carol Walsh, over two years from July 1999 to June 2001. He claimed that the events cumulatively caused personal injuries and that management effectively ignored his efforts to raise concerns. These were allegations; the court did not determine their truth.
The plenary summons was issued in November 2001. The judgment recounts repeated periods of inactivity, including delays in delivering the statement of claim and responding to requests for particulars. In 2012, on the council’s second dismissal motion, the court accepted that the plaintiff’s earlier delay was inordinate and inexcusable but allowed the action to proceed on terms, including the undertaking.
After a discovery order in November 2012, the council provided documents in April 2013. The parties disputed whether that disclosure met the order. The plaintiff sought further discovery, which was ordered in March 2015 and provided in August that year. The judge said that, at the latest from August 2015, the plaintiff was obliged under his undertaking to move the case towards a hearing, but did little of consequence before the council’s motion issued in May 2018.
Justice Noonan found the five-and-a-half-year period from the 2012 ruling to the 2018 motion both inordinate and inexcusable. He also noted that about 16 and a half years had passed since the summons was issued, with the overwhelming majority of the delay attributable to the plaintiff.
The judge said the case depended largely on oral evidence about events that would be 18 to 20 years old by trial. Even without proof of a specific lost witness or other actual prejudice, reliance on witnesses’ memories after so long created significant presumptive prejudice for the council. The court also considered the prolonged unresolved allegations against identified individuals a source of ongoing prejudice.
The court concluded that the balance of justice favoured dismissal, even without the undertaking; the plaintiff’s failure to comply with it reinforced that conclusion. The action was dismissed.