The High Court struck out a personal injury action brought by Anita Caulfied against Fitzwilliam Hotel Group Limited and Kenneth Sheridan, finding that the plaintiff’s delay in pursuing the claim was inordinate and inexcusable and that the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered judgment on 29 March 2019 on an application by the first named defendant to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution. The personal injuries summons was issued on 16 November 2011. The claim alleged that Sheridan bullied and harassed Caulfied while she was working at premises owned by the hotel group. The court did not determine whether the alleged conduct occurred or whether the defendants were liable.
Caulfied was employed by Oceantree Limited, which provided housekeeping services to the hotel. Sheridan was employed by Ampleforth Limited, a related company of the first defendant, and was the hotel’s operations manager at the relevant time. The alleged events took place between April and July 2009.
The judgment identified two lengthy periods when the plaintiff took no steps to advance the proceedings: nearly two years before she replied to a notice for particulars, and nearly three years between that reply in February 2014 and a notice of intention to proceed in March 2017. The court also noted a delay of almost two years between the alleged events and the application to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board.
The plaintiff’s solicitor cited parallel proceedings, chronic depression, financial circumstances, stress from what the affidavit described as allegations by Sheridan, and a failure to respond to a March 2017 letter as factors contributing to the delay. The judge said the explanations did not satisfactorily account for the periods of inactivity. He noted that no medical report had been provided in support of the health explanation.
In weighing the balance of justice, the judge considered that a claim of this kind depended on testimony from people present at or witnessing the alleged events. The passage of about ten years could affect the accuracy of that evidence and prejudice the first defendant’s ability to defend the claim. He did not criticise the first defendant for not taking further steps while the plaintiff had not advanced the case, noting that doing so could have reactivated proceedings that might otherwise have been abandoned.
The court therefore made an order in the terms of paragraph (i) of the notice of motion. The judgment identifies the application as one to dismiss for want of prosecution, but does not provide the text of paragraph (i).