The Court of Appeal has dismissed Rosita Sweetman’s appeal against the striking out of her claim against Coillte Teoranta, finding that the delay in the proceedings had caused serious prejudice to the company.
The appeal concerned a High Court decision dismissing Sweetman’s claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay. The Court of Appeal said the only issue pursued at the hearing was whether the balance of justice favoured allowing the proceedings to continue. It found no error in the High Court’s application of that test and dismissed the appeal.
Sweetman alleged that Lindane pesticide had been sprayed on land adjoining her property and entered her water supply, affecting her health. She also alleged that forestry works damaged or reduced the supply, blocked access to a water abstraction point and contributed to flooding in 1999 and 2000. Coillte denied the claims in its defence. The appeal judgment did not determine whether the allegations were true.
The court noted that the plenary summons was issued in July 2004, while the pleaded events included Lindane spraying between 1995 and 1998 and forestry-related events dating to 1996. It said evidence before the High Court showed that witnesses with relevant knowledge had died, while another witness was elderly, lived in Greece and could not be located. Other witnesses would be asked to recall events from many years earlier.
The judgment also identified disputed issues that would require evidence at trial: whether and when Lindane was used, the nature and effects of forestry works, the cause and extent of alleged flooding, and the cause and extent of Sweetman’s reported health complaints. The court said medical evidence would be difficult to test so long after the alleged onset of the injuries.
Sweetman argued that Coillte had acquiesced in the delay and pointed to its defence and discovery affidavit as signs that it had engaged with the merits. The Court of Appeal considered those matters but concluded they did not outweigh the prejudice caused by the delay. It said the case’s complexity did not justify the time taken and that the claim could not be determined largely on documents.
The ruling upheld the High Court dismissal of Sweetman’s claim. The judgment noted that the connected claims brought by her two children had also been dismissed in the High Court, but neither child appealed.