The High Court has dismissed a contribution claim brought by Pat Reynolds & Sons Limited against ACC Bank plc, T&F Gilmore Limited and Daimler Chrysler AG, finding that the plaintiff’s delay was inordinate and inexcusable and that allowing the case to continue would cause more than moderate prejudice to the defendants.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice White on 22 July 2016, concerned three defendants’ applications to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution or delay. The first defendant issued its own motion after the court directed it to do so. The court heard the applications and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim; it did not determine who was responsible for the underlying accident or whether a mirror should have been fitted to the lorry.
The proceedings were issued in March 2007. The company sought a contribution, potentially covering the full damages and costs it had paid to Vincent McBennett, who was injured in a 2005 road collision. The statement of claim alleged that the plaintiff’s lorry driver struck McBennett as he crossed Main Street in Castleblayney, and that the collision was caused by the absence of a proper Cyclops mirror. Those were allegations in the underlying claim, not findings in this judgment.
The court calculated delay of seven years and eight months in the claim against the third defendant, and nine years against the first and second defendants. It found the delay inordinate. The plaintiff’s solicitor had acted bona fide, the court accepted, and the case was complex and required research. But the affidavits did not give enough detail about the research or its timeline to explain the delay, and the court found it inexcusable.
In considering prejudice, the judge said the passage of time could affect witnesses’ ability to recall events. McBennett had died in 2011. The plaintiff argued that other witnesses could describe the collision, while the defendants disputed that his absence caused no prejudice. The court found he was a relevant witness because his route towards the vehicle and his alertness could matter to liability, and said it could not rule out prejudice.
The judge also considered that the plaintiff had settled McBennett’s claim before proceedings were issued and without the defendants participating in its defence or settlement. The court rejected the argument that the defendants’ failure to seek dismissal earlier, or the second defendant’s consent to setting the case down for trial, amounted to a reason not to dismiss. It concluded that the combined factors showed more than moderate prejudice and ordered that the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed.