The High Court has refused an application by Pembroke Equity Partners Limited to dismiss claims arising from the sale and financing of a pharmacy, despite finding that the plaintiffs had caused inordinate and inexcusable delay in progressing the case.
The application was made on two grounds: delay and the effect of the plaintiffs’ decision to discontinue their claims against two other defendants. Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan refused both grounds. She did not determine the underlying claims about the pharmacy transaction or the loan.
The dispute began after City Pharmacy Limited and Corrigan Pharmacy Holdings Limited acquired the pharmacy business in 2005. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the vendors supplied inaccurate financial information and that advisers and funders were negligent or misrepresented matters. Pembroke denies acting as an adviser and says its role was to lend €300,000 to Eileen Corrigan and James Paul Galligan in 2006. Those are contested claims, not findings in this judgment.
Pembroke separately sued Ms Corrigan and Mr Galligan over the loan. The related proceedings overlap in parties and issues with the pharmacy case. The judge said the plaintiffs had left the pharmacy proceedings in abeyance for long periods and that their delay was inexcusable. She also found responsibility for delay was shared to some extent, including by defendants, and described the litigation strategies on both sides as contributing to the slow progress.
In refusing dismissal on delay grounds, the judge focused on the connection between the two cases. She was satisfied it would be unjust to dismiss the pharmacy claims while the loan proceedings remained active, because doing so could disadvantage Ms Corrigan in defending the loan claim. Pembroke had not provided a specific evidential basis for its general assertions that defending the old case would cause substantial difficulties. The judge also noted that no claim had been made that witnesses were unavailable or evidence had been lost.
The second ground concerned a 2011 order directing that issues be heard in sequence by the same judge. Pembroke argued that, after the claims against the accountants were discontinued in 2020, that arrangement could no longer be followed. The judge held that the order did not prevent the remaining claims from proceeding. Claims still outstanding between the plaintiffs and the vendors must be heard before the claim between Ms Corrigan and Pembroke, in accordance with the order. Any implications of settlement terms with parties released from the case are matters for trial.
The judge invited the parties to agree a timetable for the remaining steps, including service, expert reports, witness statements and particulars of special damages. If they could not agree, she said they could seek case-management directions aimed at an expeditious determination.