Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in personal injuries proceedings relating to workplace stress and bullying, dismisses the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay, and a real risk of an unfair trial and/or unjust result, finding, inter alia, that it would constitute a clear injustice to require the Defendant to defend the Plaintiff’s claim in circumstances where the case would centre upon significant oral testimony which would be impacted by the memories of witnesses which have been degraded by the length of time which has passed as a result of the delay.
Defendant seeking to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for want of prosecution on the basis of inordinate and inexcusable delay - primor principles - O’Domhnaill principles - consideration timeline - plaintiff's case she was harassed and bullied by servants or agents of the defendant between 2008 and 2012 - PIAB application December 2013 - change of solicitors in 2019 - court notes open to plaintiff to seek PIAB authorisation early 2012 - consideration nature of plaintiff's claim - court places note of significance of oral evidence - trial judge would have to rely on oral testimony - oral testimony relating to plaintiff informing defendant - to repeated requests and to complaints - court finds plaintiff made late start to proceedings - appearance September 2014 – plaintiff’s affidavit of verification Jan 2015 – defence Jan 2015 - plaintiff relies upon statute of limitations - court notes trial would only take place 2024 earliest - 16 years after events in dispute - court analysis particulars and notes determination of issues would rely on disputed oral evidence - court notes plaintiff aware of significance of oral evidence - court notes the significance of the passage of time - court finds numerous instances of failure by defendant to progress case - plaintiff took 11 months to reply to particulars - court considers excuses for delay - court finds this is not a documents case - court finds delay inexcusable and inordinate - plaintiff responsible for 6 years delay - court considers balance of justice - degrading of witness memory - consideration prejudice - moderate prejudice in terms of primor - further significant prejudice in terms of O’Domhnaill principles and prejudice to fair trial - court finds there isn't prejudice in terms of witness availability - court rejects claim that defendant contributed to delay - court concludes balance of justice favours dismissal on primor grounds - further on O’Domhnaill grounds alone -
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.