The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Guerin’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to dismiss Allied Irish Banks plc’s claim against him for want of prosecution.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s refusal to strike out the proceedings because of delay. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge had properly exercised his discretion to allow the action to proceed to trial. Its ruling did not determine the merits of the bank’s underlying claim.
The bank issued a summary summons in April 2007 seeking recovery of a liquidated sum. The parties reached a settlement agreement in April 2008, and the motion for judgment was adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter. The bank later re-entered the motion after an alleged failure by Mr Guerin to comply with the agreement. The proceedings were transferred to a plenary hearing in April 2010.
After the bank delivered particulars in January 2013, it took no steps to advance the proceedings until February 2016. The bank accepted responsibility for that period of delay, explaining that its solicitor was winding down his practice and it had not realised the case was not progressing. The High Court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable.
Mr Guerin argued that the balance of justice required dismissal, citing the bank’s delay, alleged harm to his credit rating and reputation, lost banking documents, the departure of bank employees, and the parties’ unequal resources. The High Court rejected his claims of prejudice, relying in part on evidence that the bank had not reported the proceedings to third parties and was willing to provide copies of material documents. It also considered delays attributed to Mr Guerin, including delays in responding to the bank and the handling of his dismissal motion, which was twice struck out for non-attendance.
The Court of Appeal said the appeal was not a rehearing of the dismissal motion. It found no basis to conclude that the High Court lacked a reasonable basis for its decision or that the interests of justice required appellate intervention. It also rejected the argument that the High Court’s failure to mention Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by itself, required the decision to be set aside. The court said the risk that the bank’s claim would become statute-barred if dismissed was not a factor to weigh in the balance of justice.
The court therefore dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s refusal to dismiss the proceedings in place.