The High Court has struck out a former Garda’s personal-injury proceedings over alleged hearing loss and tinnitus, finding that the claim had been delayed for years without an adequate explanation and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
In a judgment delivered on 22 October 2007, Mr Justice Feeney granted an application by the Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General to dismiss the proceedings for inordinate and inexcusable delay. The court applied the principles in *Primor v Stokes Kennedy Crowley*, first considering whether the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, then weighing where the balance of justice lay.
The plaintiff worked as a member of An Garda Síochána from 1965 until retiring in 1995. He claimed that, on unidentified dates during his employment, he was exposed to excessive noise and suffered hearing loss and tinnitus in both ears. The judgment records these as allegations; the court did not determine their merits.
He issued a plenary summons on 9 June 1998. It was served in February 1999, and an appearance was entered that May. The court noted that more than seven years passed after the last proceeding before a June 2006 letter offered consent to delivery of a statement of claim within 21 days. The claim was not set out in a statement until February 2007. That document identified hearing loss but did not specify when the alleged noise exposure occurred.
The plaintiff’s explanation was that an audiology appointment had been arranged for July 2001 and that his solicitor told him in January 2002 the test results were available if payment was made. No payment was made then, and the court said no results were available. Payment was not made until October 2006, and the statement of claim followed in February 2007.
The plaintiff relied on the consequences of striking out the case, his explanation for the delay, the defendants’ three-week extension in June 2006 and the absence of specific prejudice asserted by the defendants. The judge found those factors insufficient. He said the claim concerned events potentially dating back to 1965, and the court was satisfied that the delay created inevitable prejudice and a real risk to justice.
The court therefore granted the defendants’ application and struck out the proceedings. It made no finding on whether the alleged exposure or injuries occurred.