Court of Appeal dismisses appeal, and affirms an order of the High Court dismissing the plaintiff’s claim concerning the purchase and management of a stallion as part of a syndicate for inordinate and inexcusable delay, on the grounds that: (a) the issue of recovering costs in an interim injunction application was not relevant to progressing the proceedings and evidence of ill health was not sufficient to justify the delay, and (b) the syndicate agreement concerning the horse had been made in 2008, the proceedings issued in 2013, and there would be prejudice in allowing the matter to proceed as issues would have to be resolved by oral testimony.
Court of Appeal – Appeal of order of the High Court striking out the plaintiff’s claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay – claim arising out of a Syndicate Agreement in 2008 – plaintiff purchased a share in a stallion horse – allegations that the defendant has mismanaged the stallion – proceedings ground to a halt in 2014 – Notice of Intention to proceed in 2018 – motion to remit the proceedings to the Circuit Court more than a year later – initial dealings concerning the agreement and any oral agreement is now 13 years old – economic downturn – circumstances of payment for cover is complex – difficult to trace all relevant mare owners and recall these transactions – period of time taken up with the taxation of the costs of the interim injunction was not an excuse for the delay – extraneous to the conduct of proceedings - defendant not in default, little weight should attach to delay – ill health of the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s solicitor is not an excuse for the inaction for a period of three years an eight months – no medical evidence presented – no evidence that he could not give instructions during the period due to ill health or because he was residing in Spain – first period of delay was inexcusable – explanations for the delay do not justify the delay – issue of recovering the costs of an interim injunction are not relevant – evidence of ill health of the plaintiff and his solicitor is not sufficient to explain why the case could not proceed – no excuse for the delay in issuing a motion to remit the proceedings to the Circuit Court after the service of a notice of intention to proceed – another delay in relation to the second notice of intention to proceed – moderate prejudice established if the case is to proceed to trial – moderate prejudice if the case proceeds to trial – matters occurred in 2008 and 2011 – requires critical issues to be resolved by oral testimony – balance of justice lies in favour of dismissing the proceedings – refuse the appeal – affirm the order of the High Court - s.169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 – Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts apply – costs follow the event.