The High Court has proposed dismissing a construction company’s €287,502.65 claim against a defendant for want of prosecution, after finding that it took no substantive steps to advance the case during a period of almost five years.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 10 July 2025, Mr Justice Barr said the critical period ran from 9 March 2019, when replies to particulars were furnished, to 11 March 2024, when the plaintiff raised a further notice for particulars. The court rejected the plaintiff’s explanation that COVID-19 restrictions prevented progress until the end of 2021, noting that court business and legal work could resume remotely from 2020.
The claim concerns unpaid invoices for building work. The plaintiff says it agreed in 2006 to refurbish a dwelling and build nine more houses on lands in County Tipperary, and that €287,502.65 remained due under invoices issued in 2008 and 2010. The defendant denies personal liability, saying the agreement was with his company. He also counterclaimed, alleging delay and defective construction and claiming losses of about €3 million. Those claims were not decided at trial.
The defendant sought dismissal because of delay. He argued that faded memories, the age of the events and his own age and health would make it harder to defend the case. The plaintiff said it had been preparing for trial, including obtaining expert reports to address the counterclaim, and argued that the defendant had not shown specific prejudice.
Applying the Supreme Court’s test in *Kirwan v Connors*, Mr Justice Barr found that the question of who had contracted with the plaintiff would require oral evidence. He accepted that the passage of time would put the defendant and witnesses at a considerable disadvantage, and found that the defendant had established prejudice. The court also held that the defendant’s failure to respond to a 2021 letter proposing expert discussions had not prevented the plaintiff from progressing the case.
The judgment states that the court will dismiss the proceedings against the defendant for want of prosecution. It also proposes dismissing the counterclaim on consent, following the defendant’s counsel’s position that it could be dismissed if the plaintiff’s claim were struck out. The judgment is not itself the final order: the parties were given one week to make written submissions on the order, costs and other matters, with the case listed for mention on 23 July 2025.