aibp
In a Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Barrett on the 28th day of February, 2014 in the case of Ann Vernon –v- AIBP Limited [2001 No. 17590 P.] the Judge declined an Application by AIBP to dismiss the Plaintiff`s Proceedings despite an 8 year delay by the Plaintiff in prosecuting her Claim. The Court, in reaching its Decision, took into account the Plaintiff`s social background.
The Facts
Ms. Vernon alleged that she was injured in a factory accident on or about 14th December, 1999. Following that accident she commenced Proceedings against AIBP. A Plenary Summons (the initial Court document) issued on 30th November, 2001. An Appearance (the first response document) was entered by the Defendant AIBP on 6th February, 2002. A Statement of Claim (the second document filed by the Plaintiff giving more detail of her Claim) was delivered on 8th February, 2002. AIBP raised a Notice for Particulars and thereafter delivered a Defence on 16th October, 2002. Ms. Vernon’s advisors raised Notice for Particulars arising from the Defence on 29th October, 2002 and AIBP replied to same on 30th June, 2003. A Notice of Intention to Proceed dated 13th May, 2004 was delivered by the solicitors for Ms. Vernon. Thereafter, no further action was taken by Ms. Vernon or, it appears, by AIBP, until 27th November, 2012, when Ms. Vernon’s solicitors served a second Notice of Intention to Proceed, thus giving rise to the application before the Court.
High Court, Dublin
In the period between 2004 and 2012 it appears that Ms. Vernon suffered from ill-health and a variety of personal and family misfortunes. She was not in contact with her solicitors throughout this time. Nor it appears were the solicitors able to contact her after Ms. Vernon changed address without advising her new address to her solicitors.
The Court`s Decision
Mr. Justice Barrett noted that the case raised, amongst other matters, the question as to the extent to which the court, in determining what is inexcusable delay, can have regard to the socio-economic background of a plaintiff and perhaps apply a less rigorous standard of what is inexcusable than it would apply to those hailing from a more advantaged environment.
Applying a three-limb test to be applied in cases of delay, namely:
(1) is the delay inordinate?
(2) is the delay inexcusable?
(3) even if inordinate and inexcusable, is the balance of justice in favour of or against the proceeding of the case?
the Judge was of the view that the delay by Ms Vernon was excusable. The Judge was certainly influenced by her social background. He noted that Ms Vernon appeared to “not to have been as attentive to the progress of her case as one might expect of a more advantaged person”. The Judge also commented that “the degree of expedition that would be required of a large corporation in her place cannot reasonably be required of Ms. Vernon”. He took account of the Plaintiff`s Counsel remark that AIBP was a going concern and thus must have retained some relevant records. Despite AIBP`s claim that they had been prejudiced by the delay in preparing a defence of the Claim the court rejected the application by AIBP for an order of the court dismissing Ms. Vernon’s Proceedings for want of prosecution.
Conclusion
Courts Service
There are many instances where a Court will dismiss a Plaintiff`s Proceedings due to a delay by the Plaintiff in prosecuting her Claim. This will generally occur where the Court is satisfied that the Defendant has been prejudiced by that delay in properly preparing its defence of the Claim. It would appear however that the Court will also be influenced by the Plaintiff`s social standing compared to that of the Defendant.
Morgan McManus solicitors practise in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Whether your Claim arises in Counties Monaghan, Cavan, Fermanagh or Tyrone contact Brian Morgan for further advice at 0035347 51011