The High Court has dismissed a personal injury action against the legal representative of a deceased driver after finding that the plaintiff had allowed the proceedings to stall for years without adequate explanation.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 2 June 2022 that the balance of justice was against allowing the case to proceed against the first defendant, the driver’s widow. The court did not decide whether the accident was caused by negligence or whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages. The order applies only to the proceedings against the first defendant.
The plaintiff’s claim arose from a road crash on 7 June 2010. He had been a passenger in a car driven by his friend, who died in the accident. The claim alleged that the driver’s conduct, a worn rear tyre and water on the road contributed to the crash. It also alleged faults involving the car’s sale and inspection, and the road’s maintenance. Those allegations were not findings by the court.
The personal injury proceedings were issued in July 2013 and served in August 2014. The judge said that, despite the passage of almost nine years after the proceedings began, they had advanced little beyond service of the summons. The plaintiff’s solicitor said the case had effectively gone cold from 2015, when the firm could not contact the plaintiff, who had returned to Moldova. The plaintiff did not swear an affidavit explaining why he had not stayed in contact with his lawyers.
The plaintiff also relied on a claimed concern that suing the widow as the deceased driver’s legal representative would harm her personally or damage their friendship. The judge found that this did not excuse the delay, noting that the concern could have been addressed and that the claim had already proceeded through an application to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and the issue of court proceedings.
In assessing prejudice, the judge said the delay could impair witnesses’ memories and the defendants’ ability to examine questions about the vehicle, its inspection, the road and the plaintiff’s medical history. He rejected the plaintiff’s submission that the case could be treated as an assessment of damages only: liability had not been conceded, and the pleaded case involved multiple alleged causes.
The court also said the widow’s apparent consent to a Personal Injuries Assessment Board assessment did not amount to an admission of liability or prevent her from defending later proceedings. No assessment had been made in this case.
The judge directed the parties to file any written submissions on costs by 30 June 2022 and listed the case for final orders on 4 July 2022. The judgment does not state the final costs order.