Introduction

The case of Kehoe & Anor v. Promontoria (Aran) Ltd & Anor. (Approved), decided by the High Court of Ireland on August 11, 2021, addresses the critical issue of procedural delays in litigation. The plaintiffs, Declan and Una Kehoe, sought over €3 million in loans related to property acquisitions in Dublin. They registered a lis pendens to prevent the sale of their property in Tralee, Co. Kerry, by a receiver. However, due to significant delays in prosecuting the proceedings, the defendants, Promontoria (Aran) Ltd and Ken Fennell, moved to strike out the plaintiffs’ case for inordinate and inexcusable delay.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court examined whether the plaintiffs’ proceedings should be dismissed due to prolonged inaction, amounting to a total delay of 37 months. The plaintiffs failed to serve the plenary summons promptly and did not advance the case for over three years. The court found the delay both inordinate and inexcusable, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings and the vacation of the lis pendens. The judgment underscores the importance of timely prosecution of legal actions, especially when a lis pendens is involved.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents to establish the standards for evaluating delay and abuse of court processes:

• Hurley Property ICAV v. Charleen Ltd [2018] IEHC 611: Clarified the meanings of 'unreasonable delay' and 'bona fide' in the context of lis pendens.
• Primor plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 I.R. 459: Established the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its procedures and prevent abuse.
• The Governor and Company of Bank of Ireland v. Wilson [2020] IEHC 646: Provided benchmarks for what constitutes inordinate delays.
• Kenny v. Motor Network Ltd [2020] IECA 114: Further exemplified inordinate delays in legal proceedings.
• Leech v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited [2017] IECA 8: Highlighted how even modest prejudice can influence the balance of justice.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed a structured approach to assess the plaintiffs’ case:

1. Inordinate Delay: The court determined that the 37-month delay was significantly longer than the 18-month and 26-month delays deemed inordinate in previous cases.
2. Excusability: The plaintiffs failed to provide substantial reasons for the delay. Arguments such as a change of solicitors and attempts to engage with Ulster Bank were insufficient.
3. Balance of Justice: The prolonged delay prejudiced the defendants by preventing them from realizing their security interests. The court found that the interests of justice favored striking out the proceedings.

The court emphasized that the registration of a lis pendens imposes an obligation to prosecute the related proceedings diligently. The plaintiffs’ failure to do so was deemed an abuse of the court’s process.

Impact

This judgment sets a stringent precedent for litigants in Ireland, particularly regarding the timely prosecution of cases involving lis pendens. It underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for delays that hinder the rights of opposing parties and exploitation of court processes. Future cases will likely reference this judgment to enforce deadlines and discourage plaintiffs from engaging in stalling tactics.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in Kehoe & Anor v. Promontoria (Aran) Ltd & Anor. (Approved) serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to efficient and fair legal proceedings. By striking out the plaintiffs’ case due to inordinate and inexcusable delays, the court reinforced the necessity for litigants to actively and promptly prosecute their claims, especially when a lis pendens is involved. This judgment not only preserves the integrity of the legal system but also protects the rights of defendants from undue prejudice caused by stalled litigation.