Claim against third party struck out after inordinate delay

Third party seeks to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against him on the basis that the claims are bound to fail, and on the basis of delay - defendant is developer of residential houses - plaintiffs allege that the defendant did not retain any easements and that part of a relevant road used by the defendant to access the houses was within their ownership - defendant delivered a defence which pleaded that a mapping error occurred which did not reflect the true intention of the parties and counterclaimed for rectification – in October 2002 the defendant sought and was granted leave to deliver a third party notice to the now third party – in December 2004 discovery was made by the third party to the defendant – in February 2006 a notice of intention to proceed was delivered to the third party, but no steps were taken pursuant thereto – a further notice to proceed was delivered eight years later, in May 2014 – the instant application was issued in November 2014 and has been adjourned coming before the Court in October 2015 – the time between the date of the delivery of discovery by the third party, to the date the within application was brought, amounts to almost ten years - in any cause or matter in which there has been no proceeding for two years from the last proceeding, the respondent may apply to the court to dismiss the same for want of prosecution - there was a delay of eight years between the notice of intention to proceed against the third party in 2006 and the further notice of intention to proceed in May 2014 - defendant submitted that delay was caused by a settlement of the action between the plaintiff and the defendant for €80,000 inclusive of costs – defendant also submitted that delay was caused by issuing of proceedings against the solicitors – court does not consider that there are sufficient grounds made out on behalf of the third party to enable the Court to give serious consideration to the claim being dismissed on the grounds of being unsustainable - the delay on the part of the defendants to take any meaningful steps between November 2004, and May 2014, with regard to the within proceedings constitutes inordinate delay – reasons put forward by the defendant to excuse this inordinate delay are inadequate – defendant suggested that its failure to progress these proceedings was due to its intention to link the solicitor proceedings with the instant proceedings so that they can be heard together – Court is particularly mindful that the third party is a professional person who has had this case hanging over his head for almost ten years – defendant brought a separate action against the solicitors in the High Court, and these proceedings were settled in the sum of €180,000 without the participation of the third party – plaintiff’s proceedings were settled by the defendant in 2009 for a sum of €80,000 inclusive of costs – third party has effectively no role in relation to the involvement of the solicitors – only claim by the defendant against the third party is for an indemnity in respect of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant which was compromised in February 2009 – defendant now seeks to alter the basis of the claim to a direct claim against the third party – this is an unfair position for the third party - defendant acted unreasonably and contrary to its clear obligation to use the third party procedure for the purpose of joining the solicitors to these proceedings - at all material times when both matters were compromised, the defendants were only seeking from the third party an indemnity in respect of the plaintiffs’ claim as against the defendant – third party has been placed at a significant disadvantage by the delay and the manner in which the defendants have conducted the two sets of relevant proceedings to date – defendants proceedings against the third party must be dismissed.