The High Court dismissed John Pugh and Rory Harte’s proceedings against P.G.M. Financial Services Limited and Patrick McEntee, finding that the plaintiffs’ delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
Mr Justice Sanfey delivered the judgment on 23 January 2020. The application concerned only the claims against the first and second defendants. The defendants had also asked the court, if the delay application failed, to strike out certain claims for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of trust for lack of particulars. The judge said it was unnecessary to consider that alternative request after dismissing the proceedings against them.
The plaintiffs alleged that McEntee advised them about investments in the Rowan 4 Fund and made representations about his role and the fund. The defendants denied the material allegations, including that McEntee owed the plaintiffs fiduciary duties or had assumed personal responsibility to advise them. The judgment records that the nature of their relationship and the alleged advice remained disputed. The court did not determine the underlying investment claims or the defendants’ separate plea that the claims were statute-barred.
The proceedings began with a plenary summons issued on 20 October 2014, which was served on the first and second defendants on 19 October 2015. The plaintiffs delivered a statement of claim in March 2016. The defendants entered an appearance in November 2016 and delivered their defence and a notice for particulars in July 2017. The plaintiffs’ replies to particulars followed in April 2018; the judge described them as inadequate. The defendants sought further and better particulars the following month. Their dismissal application issued in January 2019.
The plaintiffs argued that they had brought the case promptly after their pension investments matured in 2014, and pointed to delays by the defendants in entering an appearance and delivering a defence. The judge treated the time between the events underlying the claims and the start of proceedings as imposing an onus on the plaintiffs to progress the case promptly. He found the plaintiffs’ delays in serving the summons and responding to particulars cumulatively inordinate, and rejected their explanations as insufficient to excuse them.
The judge also found that the defendants had suffered prejudice, including difficulties in defending allegations concerning events dating back to 2007 and 2008. Although he considered the delay in delivering the defence culpable, he found no evidence that the defendants had acquiesced in the plaintiffs’ delay. The dismissal applies to the proceedings against the first and second defendants; the judgment does not determine the remaining claims.