Application of the Primor Test in Striking Out Proceedings: Insights from Field v Cronin & Ors [2022] IEHC 292

Introduction

The case of Field v Cronin & Ors (Approved) ([2022] IEHC 292) was adjudicated in the High Court of Ireland on May 9, 2022. The plaintiff, Samuel Field, a labourer injured in a vehicular accident, initiated a personal injury claim against multiple defendants, including the landowner, business operators, fuel suppliers, and the local authority responsible for road maintenance. The central issue revolved around the application by the first, second, and fifth defendants to strike out the plaintiff's proceedings on grounds of "want of prosecution" due to alleged inordinate and inexcusable delay.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Barr delivered the judgment, rejecting the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's case. The court meticulously examined the timeline of proceedings, the nature of the delays, and the personal circumstances of the plaintiff. It concluded that while there was a delay between 2016 and 2019, this delay was excusable given the plaintiff's severe physical and psychological injuries, financial constraints, and custodial issues. Consequently, the court found no significant prejudice to the defendants and allowed the action to proceed against the first, second, and fifth defendants.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced foundational cases shaping the legal framework for striking out proceedings due to delay. Chief among them was Primor v Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 IR 459, where Hamilton C.J. outlined a four-part test for such applications. Subsequent cases like Millerick v Minister for Finance [2016] IECA 206 and Mangan v Dockeray & Ors. [2020] IESC 67 further elucidated this test, emphasizing the necessity of establishing both inordinate and inexcusable delay and assessing the balance of justice. These precedents provided the structural backbone for Justice Barr's reasoning in the present case.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed the Primor test, which requires:

Establishing that the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable.
Assessing whether the balance of justice favors proceeding with the case or striking it out.

In Field v Cronin & Ors, the court focused on the delay post-2016, when the plaintiff's solicitor withdrew from the case. Given the plaintiff's debilitating injuries and personal challenges, the court deemed the subsequent three-year delay between 2016 and 2019 as excusable. Furthermore, the court found no substantial prejudice to the defendants, as key evidence, particularly police reports, remained intact and accessible. This meticulous balance ensured that justice was served without being hindered by procedural delays.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to a fair assessment of delays, especially when plaintiffs face genuine hardships. It underscores that not all delays are inherently prejudicial and that courts must holistically evaluate the reasons behind delays. Future cases involving applications to strike out proceedings will likely reference this judgment when similar circumstances of excusable delay and absence of prejudice arise.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Primor Test: A legal framework used to determine whether a court should dismiss a case due to delay. It involves:

Proving that the delay is both excessive (inordinate) and unjustifiable (inexcusable).
Weighing the advantages and disadvantages (balance of justice) of continuing versus dismissing the case.

Strike Out for Want of Prosecution: A legal mechanism where a court dismisses a case because the plaintiff has not actively pursued it within a reasonable timeframe.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Field v Cronin & Ors serves as a pivotal reference for applications to strike out proceedings based on delay. By applying the Primor test judiciously, the court balanced procedural efficiency with substantive fairness, ensuring that plaintiffs facing legitimate obstacles are not unduly penalized. This judgment not only clarifies the application of existing legal principles but also reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding equitable justice.