Claim dismissed following inordinate delay of eight years

Appeal of order that the plaintiff’s claim against the first defendant be struck out pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court – inordinate and inexcusable delay – conceded delay of over five and a half years in the prosecution of his claim – High Court found that the plaintiff was responsible for delay more in the order of seven or eight years – balance of justice lay in favour of striking out the claim – claim relates to flooding to the plaintiff’s property allegedly caused during the construction of a motorway – passage of twelve years since the occurrence of the alleged flooding – would make claim difficult to defence – significant prejudice – N6 was a joint venture company involving a Spanish registered multi-national infrastructure company and an Irish contractor – incorporated solely for the purpose of constructing the M6 motorway – no active ongoing purpose – no longer trading and has not done so for several years – untraceable employees – plaintiff argued they were not responsible for all of the delay – submitted that in considering the balance of justice, the court should have regard to the fact that the case is likely to be decided on the basis of expert and technical evidence – court not satisfied that trial could proceed only based on this evidence - defendant did not acquiesce to the Plaintiff’s delay – trial still in early stages – best scenario is that the proceedings would come to trial seventeen years after the works began – prejudice not limited to the defence of the proceedings but also to reputational damage, inconvenience and stress of being subject to litigation over an extended period – appellant jurisdiction – free to exercise its own discretion as to whether or not the case should be dismissed - constitutional imperative to bring to an end delays in litigation to ensure the effective administration of justice - once a defendant establishes inordinate and inexcusable delay- it can urge the court to dismiss the proceedings having regard to a whole range of factors - including relatively modest prejudice arising from that delay – each case must be decided on its own facts – High Court judge’s decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim was the correct one – oversight on the part of the defendant’s solicitor in delivering defence was not material – did not impact the plaintiff’s ability to progress its case – defendant was persistent in their efforts to move the case along – appeal dismissed – order dismissing the claim upheld – costs follow the event.