- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
McAndrew v Egan t/a Egan Daughter & Co. Solicitors
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff initiated proceedings against the defendant concerning alleged professional negligence arising from the defendant's conduct as a solicitor in relation to the conveyance of a dwelling house. The plenary summons was issued on 10th October 2011, with the defendant entering an appearance on 21st November 2011. The defendant delivered a defence and raised a notice for particulars on 30th July 2012, to which the plaintiff replied on 10th August 2012. Subsequent requests for particulars and voluntary discovery were exchanged between the parties through 2013. The defendant’s last procedural step was filing an affidavit of discovery on 7th October 2013. Thereafter, the plaintiff did not take any direct steps to advance the proceedings for approximately three years and four months, leading to the defendant bringing a motion to strike out the claim for want of prosecution and on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay. The motion was issued in November 2015 and heard on 13th February 2017. The plaintiff attributed the delay to difficulties in obtaining new legal representation following the discharge of his former solicitors. Correspondence between the parties during the period of delay reflects repeated requests by the defendant’s solicitors for the plaintiff to advance the case or respond to outstanding discovery obligations, which went largely unheeded.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiff’s claim should be struck out for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.
- Whether the defendant is entitled to dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution pursuant to Order 122, Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The plaintiff has caused inordinate and inexcusable delay by failing to take any steps to advance the proceedings since October 2013.
- The delay has caused prejudice to the defendant, including the unavailability of key witnesses such as a co-defendant who died in 2014.
- The defendant seeks dismissal of the claim on the basis of both inordinate delay and want of prosecution under the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The delay is explained by difficulties in obtaining new solicitors and legal advice after the discharge of his former solicitors.
- The plaintiff alleged intimidation attempts by the defendant, including notices of trial and pressure to withdraw the proceedings.
- The plaintiff contended that some delay was attributable to the defendant, including delayed responses to requests for particulars.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rainsford v Limerick Corporation [1995] 2 ILRM 561 | Principles governing dismissal for inordinate and inexcusable delay, including the court’s inherent jurisdiction and balancing of interests. | Formed the foundational principles for assessing delay and discretion to strike out proceedings. |
| Primor plc. v Stokes Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 I.R.459 | Summarised principles from Rainsford; emphasised balancing interests and considering prejudice and fairness. | Used to guide the Court’s exercise of discretion and evaluation of delay and prejudice. |
| Stephens v Paul Flynn Limited [2005] IEHC 148 | Confirmed cumulative test for delay: ascertain if delay is inordinate and inexcusable, then decide where balance of justice lies. | Applied to confirm the test for striking out the claim for delay. |
| Granahan T/A C G Roofing and General Builders v Mercury Engineering [2015] IECA 58 | Emphasised courts’ constitutional and ECHR obligations to conclude proceedings within reasonable time, and the need to reduce indulgence of delay. | Supported the Court’s approach to stricter enforcement of timely progression of litigation. |
| Gilroy v Flynn [2005] 1 ILRM 290 | Highlighted unfairness of allowing stale claims to proceed and the obligation to ensure timely determination of rights under ECHR. | Reinforced the Court’s constitutional and human rights considerations in assessing delay. |
| McBrearty v North Western Health Board [2007] IEHC 431 | Confirmed that delay attributable to solicitors can be imputed to the plaintiff; discretion remains in balancing justice. | Supported the Court’s finding that plaintiff’s responsibility includes advancing proceedings even when unrepresented. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court identified the period of delay as commencing from the plaintiff’s final affidavit of discovery on 7th October 2013 until the hearing of the motion in February 2017, a period exceeding three years. The Court found that no steps were taken by the plaintiff during this time to advance the proceedings, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence to contradict this assertion. The plaintiff’s explanation for the delay centered on difficulties in obtaining new legal representation after his former solicitors ceased practice. However, the Court noted established jurisprudence that delay caused by a plaintiff’s legal advisers is generally attributed to the plaintiff, and that even without legal representation, a plaintiff cannot indefinitely stall proceedings. The Court considered the correspondence between the parties, evidencing repeated attempts by the defendant to progress the case and the plaintiff’s limited responses. The Court also took into account the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay, including the death of a key witness and the fading recollection of others, which undermined the defendant’s ability to mount a full defence. Balancing the interests of both parties and applying the principles enunciated in key precedents, the Court concluded that the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable. Furthermore, the Court found that the defendant was entitled to relief under the Rules of the Superior Courts for want of prosecution, given the absence of any steps taken by the plaintiff for over two years.
Holding and Implications
The Court STRUCK OUT the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay and want of prosecution. The direct effect of this decision is the dismissal of the plaintiff’s substantive proceedings against the defendant. No new precedent was established; rather, the decision reaffirmed existing principles relating to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to manage its procedure and the obligations of litigants to advance their cases within a reasonable timeframe, particularly in light of constitutional and European Convention on Human Rights requirements. The ruling underscores the responsibility of plaintiffs to avoid undue delay, including when unrepresented, and the consequences of failing to do so.
Alert