Balancing Pre and Post-Commencement Delay in Striking Out Actions: Costello v MacGeehin [2022] IEHC 442

Introduction

The case of Costello v MacGeehin P/A MacGeehin Toale Solicitors & Ors (Approved) ([2022] IEHC 442) was adjudicated in the High Court of Ireland on June 23, 2022. This case revolves around the Plaintiff, Judi Costello, a businesswoman who sustained an ankle injury due to a trip and fall incident in July 2005. Costello retained the Defendants, a firm of solicitors, to act on her behalf in pursuing a personal injury claim arising from this incident. The central issues in the case pertain to alleged delays by both parties in prosecuting and defending the claim, and whether such delays warrant the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim for being inordinate and inexcusable.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Mark Heslin delivered the judgment, evaluating whether the Plaintiff's delays in prosecuting her personal injury claim were inordinate and inexcusable under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and the Rules of the Superior Courts. The Defendants sought to strike out the Plaintiff's claim on these grounds. However, the court found that significant delays attributed to the Defendants, both pre-commencement (2005-2013) and post-commencement (2015-2017), overshadowed the Plaintiff's subsequent delays. Moreover, the Plaintiff demonstrated proactive efforts in progressing her claim through obtaining necessary medical reports and updating particulars. Consequently, the court held that while the Plaintiff's delay was inordinate, it was not inexcusable, and the balance of justice favored allowing the case to proceed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references key precedents that shape the court's approach to assessing delays in legal proceedings:

• O'Domhnaill v. Merrick [1984] IR 151: Established that both pre- and post-commencement delays can be considered when evaluating the prosecution of a case.
• Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 IR 459: Introduced a three-part test to assess delays—whether the delay is inordinate, inexcusable, and whether the balance of justice favors continuation.
• Framus Ltd. v. CRH plc. [2012] IEHC 316: Defined "inordinate" delay as irregular, excessive, or outside normal limits.
• Diamrem Ltd. v. Clare County Council [2021] IEHC 408
• Kenny v. Motor Network Ltd. & Anor [2020] IECA 114
• The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v. Wilson [2020] IEHC 646
• Henchy J. in O'Domhnaill v. Merrick [Part (d)(iii)-(vii)]
• Other relevant cases such as Sweeney v. Keating t/a Keating Transport and McDonnell Commercials (Monaghan) Ltd. [2019] IECA 43 and Dowd v. Kerry County Council [1970] IR 27.

These precedents provide a framework for evaluating the nature and impact of delays, emphasizing a balanced consideration of both parties' conduct and the overall interests of justice.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed the three-part test from Primor to assess the Defendants' motion to strike out the Plaintiff's claim:

1. Is the delay inordinate?
2. Is the delay inexcusable?
3. If both conditions are met, does the balance of justice favor or oppose the continuation of the case?

Applying this framework, Justice Heslin found:

• The delay initiated by the Defendants, spanning from the Plaintiff's injury in 2005 until the Defendants informed her in 2013 that the claim was statute-barred, was both substantial and inordinate.
• Post-commencement delays by the Defendants, including late defense submission and delayed discovery, further contributed to the inordinate nature of the overall delay.
• While the Plaintiff did have delays post-commencement from December 2018 to March 2021, these were mitigated by her proactive efforts in securing necessary medical reports and updating the claim particulars.

Importantly, the court noted that the Plaintiff's delays were largely excusable due to factors such as the difficulty in obtaining expert medical reports, which are integral to her personal injury claim.

Additionally, the court highlighted that the Defendants did not take proactive steps to challenge the Plaintiff's delays nor justify their own prolonged inaction, thereby failing to meet their burden of demonstrating inexcusable delay.

Impact

This judgment underscores the importance of a balanced assessment of delays in litigation, acknowledging that delays are often multifaceted and can be attributed to both parties involved. Key impacts include:

• Refinement of Delay Assessment: Courts must rigorously evaluate the origins and responsibilities for delays rather than applying a one-sided view.
• Emphasis on Balance of Justice: The decision reinforces that even when delays are found to be inordinate, the overall fairness and equity in allowing a case to proceed must be carefully weighed.
• Encouragement of Proactive Litigation: Parties are encouraged to actively manage their cases and communicate effectively to minimize unnecessary delays.
• Reiteration of Procedural Fairness: The judgment reaffirms that neither party should be unfairly prejudiced by procedural delays, especially when such delays are not directly caused by their own inaction.

Future cases involving motions to strike out will likely reference this judgment when deliberating on the proportionality and fairness of delays attributed to either party.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The judgment in Costello v MacGeehin serves as a pivotal reference in understanding how courts balance delays in litigation, particularly when both parties contribute to such delays. Justice Heslin's thorough analysis emphasizes that while the Plaintiff exhibited some delay, the Defendants' prolonged inaction and failure to prosecute the claim initially significantly influenced the court's decision. Importantly, the judgment highlights that the balance of justice can often favor allowing a case to proceed despite certain procedural delays, provided that these delays do not compromise the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

This case reinforces the necessity for both plaintiffs and defendants to engage proactively in legal proceedings, manage their case diligently, and maintain effective communication to prevent unnecessary delays. Moreover, it illustrates the judiciary's role in meticulously assessing the unique circumstances of each case to uphold the principles of fairness and justice.