The High Court has refused Interlink Ireland Limited’s applications to dismiss two claims over a Northern Ireland franchise or require the corporate plaintiff to provide security for costs. Mr Justice Ryan ruled on 7 February 2014 that the delay was inordinate but not inexcusable, and that the balance of justice favoured allowing the claims to continue. He did not decide their underlying merits.
The proceedings arise from a franchise agreement signed in April 1994 by Philip Shields and Interlink Ireland Limited, which trades as Interlink Express. Shields is described in the judgment as a company director resident in Northern Ireland; the other plaintiff is Hillgrange Services Limited, a company registered there. The dispute includes whether the company was permitted to provide services alongside the franchise.
Interlink’s account was that, in October 1998, a consignment raised suspicions that Shields was operating a competing business in breach of the agreement. The plaintiffs disputed that account. They alleged that Interlink entered their premises, took computers and records, and told franchisees and customers that Shields was no longer an Interlink franchisee. The claims include alleged breach of contract and other causes of action. These allegations were not determined in this application.
One claim, issued in 1998, seeks damages and other relief over the alleged repudiation of the agreement. A second, issued in 1999, seeks sums said to be due under the agreement, including commissions. The parties agreed that the claims should be tried together.
Interlink argued that the roughly 15-year delay was unreasonable and prejudiced its ability to receive a fair trial. The plaintiffs accepted that the delay was inordinate but said years of disputes over discovery contributed to it. They alleged that documents taken from their premises were not properly produced and that some were lost. The judgment records continuing correspondence and discovery steps, including a further affidavit from Interlink in 2010.
Justice Ryan said the discovery disputes provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, including the period from 2010 to 2013 when the parties discussed inspection of Interlink’s computer records. He also cited Interlink’s role in a significant part of the delay, its late dismissal application and an April 2013 letter saying it was not then appropriate to seek a trial date. The court found no specific prejudice to Interlink and saw no need to impose a sanction for delay. The defamation claim did not change that assessment. The application to strike out the claims was refused.
The court also refused security for costs against Hillgrange Services Limited. It held that Interlink applied late, after the plaintiffs had incurred substantial costs. It further found, on a prima facie basis, that the company’s alleged financial difficulties had a credible connection to the conduct complained of in the proceedings. The judgment also cited Shields’s position as a personal litigant. The ruling does not establish that the plaintiffs’ allegations are true or decide what compensation, if any, is due.