The High Court has refused to dismiss a claim over allegedly defective bricks, finding that the plaintiff’s more than six years of delay was inordinate and inexcusable but that the balance of justice favoured allowing the proceedings to continue.
The ruling concerns an application by Chadwicks Limited to dismiss proceedings brought by Paul Nolan. The underlying claim, which has progressed no further than the issue and service of a plenary summons, seeks damages for alleged negligence and breach of contract. The judgment says Nolan bought bricks from the building-materials provider in or about 2002 while building a house. His solicitors alleged in 2004 that some bricks used in the house were defective. The manufacturer was described as a UK-based company.
The plenary summons issued on 19 February 2008 and was served in February 2009. Chadwicks entered an appearance in April 2009. No statement of claim had been delivered by the time the company applied to dismiss the case in June 2014. Nolan later sought more time to deliver the statement of claim and to have the proceedings remitted to the Circuit Court. The judge said those requests could be considered only if the case survived the dismissal application.
Nolan’s solicitor cited difficulties assessing whether the alleged defects affected only the bricks’ appearance or also their durability and safety. He referred to updated reports and differing proposals for remedial work. The only report exhibited was a quantity surveyor’s estimate, dated 19 March 2013, of €12,035.24 to replace defective bricks. The judge found no evidence explaining why the assessment took so long or why a statement of claim could not have been delivered earlier. He also rejected an explanation that correcting an unspecified land-registration error had delayed the case, saying the timing and effect of that error were not established.
The court rejected Chadwicks’ claim that it would be unable to seek contribution or indemnity from the manufacturer because such a claim was time-barred. The defendant’s liability had not been determined at trial and it had paid no damages, so the judge concluded that its contribution claim was not time-barred on the information before him. He also found no specific prejudice to the defence from the delay.
The judge accepted that some general prejudice could follow from a substantial delay. But the parties and manufacturer had been sharing and discussing brick-test reports since 2004, the bricks remained available for inspection, and the case was likely to turn on expert evidence rather than witnesses’ recollections. He assessed the likely prejudice as very limited.
The court refused the dismissal application at that time. It did not decide whether to extend the time for a statement of claim or remit the proceedings to the Circuit Court, saying it would hear the parties on those requests if appropriate and necessary.