Delay was excusable where statute of limitations point was being pursued in separate proceedings

Applications to dismiss proceedings two separate but related proceedings for want of prosecution and/or inordinate and inexcusable delay - investments made by the Plaintiffs in property fund - tort of negligent misstatement and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the existence of a loan to value covenant in bank borrowings to secure the investment, of which it is claimed the Plaintiffs were not advised before entering into their investments - proceedings did not issue within six years of the investment in either case - excusability of delay in the particular circumstances of these cases and balance of justice considerations – preliminary issue pursued in separate case – chronology - Third and Fourth Named Defendants moved promptly upon receipt of the Statements of Claim and further particularisation, delivering Defences in June and July, 2015 - no steps were taken to advance proceedings as against them from 2015 – jurisdiction to dismiss – relevant legal principles – inordinate delay – inexcusable delay - a party who wishes to put proceedings on hold for any reason should at a minimum, place on record with all other parties to the litigation that that course of action is being adopted - Defendants were not lulled into a false belief that the proceedings had been abandoned – aware of the other proceedings relating to the statute of limitations point - obvious to the Defendants that the Cantrell proceedings were not only very relevant to the prospect of maintaining these proceedings but also that common sense dictated that the issue, which also arose in these proceedings having regard to the terms of the defences delivered, would be determined in those more advanced proceedings - unlikelihood of meaningfully progressing these proceedings before a final determination of the statute question in Cantrell - clear advantage of permitting the issue of principle to be determined in those other proceedings was that it avoided further court time and resources being directed to these proceedings at additional cost to all concerned – delay excusable – balance of justice - both parties have benefitted from the issue being determined otherwise than in these proceedings – prejudice - balance of justice is not yet tipped in favour of dismissal of the proceedings in either case – application refused –