The High Court has refused applications to dismiss a woman’s wrongful-death proceedings over her brother’s death outside a Portlaoise bar, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The court did not decide whether the defendants were liable for his death.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2024, Ms Justice Bolger rejected applications by Bradpower Limited and Security Partners Limited, together with six security staff, to dismiss the proceedings as statute-barred or for inordinate and inexcusable delay. The applications were heard on affidavit evidence only, without oral testimony or cross-examination.
The plaintiff’s summons alleges that, early on 10 June 2012, her brother Frank Grace was ejected from Cooper’s Bar and was pushed or fell onto the path. He died shortly afterwards. The first company denied negligence in its defence. The liability allegations remain to be determined.
At the first inquest in 2013, a jury returned a verdict of death by natural causes, accepting medical evidence that Mr Grace died from acute coronary syndrome following and associated with a fall, obesity and acute alcohol intoxication. A second inquest, directed in 2016 and held in January 2019, considered CCTV footage and statements that had not been available for the first inquest. Its jury recorded misadventure, finding that aspiration of gastric contents following a fall and loss of consciousness precipitated acute cardiac inefficiency.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff knew enough to bring her claim by 2015, when an initial Personal Injuries Assessment Board authorisation was issued. They said the later inquest and additional evidence did not change whether a claim existed. The judge said the inquest verdicts did not determine civil liability. However, the evidence available from 2018—including CCTV, an engineer’s analysis and a medical assessment that appeared to challenge the earlier pathology evidence—could bear on when the plaintiff knew her brother’s death was attributable to the acts now alleged. The affidavit record did not establish that she had the required knowledge in 2015. The court refused to dismiss the case as statute-barred at this stage.
The judge described the delay from the death in 2012 to the proceedings issued in January 2021 as undoubtedly inordinate. Evidence obtained in 2018 and the second inquest made some of the delay appear excusable, though other explanations, including COVID-19 and delay in getting instructions, were less persuasive. The defendants’ claims that memories had faded were not supported by inquiries into the recollections of particular witnesses. The judge found the balance of justice favoured allowing the case to proceed; questions of prejudice remain for the trial judge.
The case is to proceed as expeditiously as possible. The judge gave an indicative view that the plaintiff should receive the costs of the motions, with execution stayed pending final resolution, but said the parties would be heard on costs.