Egan v Bank of Ireland & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff initiated proceedings on 13 February 2014 against the Defendants, including Company A and a firm of Solicitors, claiming damages for negligence and breach of duty. The claims arose from alleged failures by the Solicitors to comply with a Solicitor’s undertaking related to certain lands in County Galway, permitting the Plaintiff to purchase properties without engineering supervision, failing to resolve boundary issues, and failing to register the Plaintiff as the owner of the entire site. The Statement of Claim, delivered on 31 March 2014, expanded allegations against the Solicitors, accusing them of negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation by failing to qualify the certificate of title and concealing that it did not cover the entire property purchased.

The Solicitors delivered their Defence on 6 March 2015, pleading, among other things, that the claim was statute barred, that the Plaintiff had caused inordinate and inexcusable delay, and that the Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Subsequently, the Solicitors brought a motion seeking dismissal of the claim on grounds of want of prosecution and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, arguing that a fair trial was no longer possible due to the lapse of time. They also contended the claim was an abuse of process because no expert report was obtained prior to issuing proceedings; such a report was only obtained in 2019, five years after commencement.

The Court reviewed the timeline of events, including the purchase in 2004, certification of title in 2005, issuance of plenary summons in 2014, delivery of Defence in 2015, discovery processes, and the late procurement of expert reports in 2019 and 2020. The Plaintiff attributed some delay to difficulties in finding Solicitors willing to act against another Solicitor and to personal health issues.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there had been an inordinate delay in prosecuting the proceedings.
2. If such delay existed, whether it was excusable.
3. Whether, despite any inordinate and inexcusable delay, the balance of justice favored dismissal of the proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

• The Plaintiff's claim was statute barred due to delay.
• The Plaintiff caused inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting the claim.
• The Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
• The claim should be dismissed for want of prosecution and under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction because a fair trial was no longer possible due to the lapse of time.
• The claim constituted an abuse of process as no expert report was obtained before issuing proceedings; the expert report was only obtained five years later.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff commenced proceedings as a lay litigant and faced difficulties in instructing Solicitors willing to act against the Defendants.
• The Plaintiff cited personal mental health issues and family problems as contributing factors to delay.
• The Plaintiff argued the case was a "documents" case and that the evidence of a key Defendant Solicitor was not required.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first identified that approximately ten years elapsed between the transactions complained of and the commencement of proceedings, imposing a duty on the Plaintiff to prosecute expeditiously. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s prosecution of the claim was marked by inordinate delay, particularly given the absence of a supportive expert report for several years after the proceedings began. The Plaintiff’s status as a lay litigant did not justify the delay, especially as the Law Society maintains panels of Solicitors willing to act against other Solicitors, undermining the Plaintiff’s excuse for difficulty in finding representation.

The Court examined the Plaintiff’s claim of mental health issues as an excuse for delay but found the medical evidence did not support an inability to prosecute the claim since the proceedings were initiated in February 2014. The Court also considered the prejudice to the Defendants, noting that a key Defendant Solicitor was medically unfit to give evidence due to cognitive problems, which constituted significant prejudice and made a fair trial impossible. The Plaintiff’s contention that the case was a "documents" case was rejected, as the Court emphasized the necessity for the Defendant to have the opportunity to provide evidence and explanation.

The Court further observed that the Defendants did not contribute materially to the delay and had been cooperative in discovery and consenting to amendments contingent on receipt of an expert report. Balancing the interests of justice, the Court concluded that the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable and that the prejudice to the Defendants justified dismissal of the proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the Solicitors’ motion to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution and under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction was GRANTED. The proceedings against the Solicitors were dismissed due to inordinate and inexcusable delay and the resultant prejudice to the Defendants, including the inability of a key Defendant to give evidence.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s claims against the Solicitors are dismissed. The Court did not establish new legal precedent but applied established principles relating to delay, prejudice, and the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss claims. The parties were directed to make submissions regarding the formal order and costs within fourteen days.