The High Court struck out a claim by Sean McAndrew against solicitor Enya Egan after finding that his delay in advancing the proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable. The court also granted the defendant’s application to dismiss the case for want of prosecution.
The proceedings concerned legal services Ms Egan provided to Mr McAndrew in connection with a dispute with a neighbour. The judgment addressed a motion by Ms Egan to strike out the claim; it did not determine the underlying dispute or the merits of the allegations concerning the legal services.
The court measured the complained-of delay from 7 January 2013, when replies to a notice for particulars were provided, to the hearing on 13 February 2017. It found that Mr McAndrew had taken no steps during that period to advance the proceedings. Ms Egan’s motion had issued in November 2015.
Mr McAndrew said he had difficulty obtaining legal representation after his former solicitors ceased practice. He told the defendant’s solicitors in 2014 and 2015 that he was seeking a solicitor and counsel. The judgment records that he later had the assistance of a McKenzie friend at the hearing.
The judge accepted that the defendant had alleged prejudice from faded witness recollections and the departure of the solicitor who had handled the file. But there was no suggestion that the former solicitor would be unavailable to give evidence, and no specific prejudice such as a witness’s death was alleged in this case. The court also noted delays by the defendant, including about eight months before a defence was filed and almost five months before replies to the plaintiff’s particulars were served.
The judge nevertheless concluded that the length of time since Mr McAndrew’s last step, and his failure to move the case forward after the motion was issued, meant the balance of justice required the claim to be struck out. The court additionally found that the defendant was entitled to dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 122, Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, as no steps had been taken by the plaintiff for more than two years.