J. Heery (Joinery) LTD v Grogan & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a company limited by shares incorporated in the State, became involved in property development in 2006 by purchasing property at Mill Lane, The City, from the Defendant. The second named Defendant acted as solicitor for the first named Defendant in the sale, while the third named Defendant acted as solicitor for the Plaintiff. During the conveyance, the Plaintiff's solicitor raised requisitions and objections on title, which were responded to by the first named Defendant. The Plaintiff later discovered that part of the property had been registered in the names of third parties, leading to a claim of negligence against the second named Defendant for failing to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the replies to the requisitions.

The Plaintiff initiated proceedings by plenary summons on 1 July 2008, which was amended in May 2011 to join the third named Defendant. The second named Defendant sought to strike out the claim in June 2020, citing inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecution. The procedural history includes various pleadings, discovery disputes, and motions, with significant periods of inactivity, notably between February 2015 and December 2019.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there has been inordinate delay in the prosecution of the proceedings.
2. If such delay exists, whether it is excusable.
3. Whether the balance of justice favors dismissing the proceedings in light of any inordinate and inexcusable delay.
4. Whether the Defendant acquiesced in the delay, affecting the discretion to strike out.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable, warranting dismissal.
• The Defendant would suffer prejudice if the case proceeded, including inability to have evidence from the now deceased first named Defendant.
• The Defendant did not acquiesce in the delay; the delay was due to Plaintiff's inaction.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff attributed delay partly to the bereavement of a company director, which affected engagement with legal proceedings.
• The Plaintiff contended the case was primarily a documents case, implying less prejudice from delay.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found the delay in prosecuting the proceedings to be clearly inordinate, highlighting significant periods of inactivity, including a four-year lapse with no steps taken by the Plaintiff. While acknowledging the Plaintiff director's bereavement and reading/writing difficulties, the court held these did not justify such prolonged delay, particularly given the corporate nature of the Plaintiff and the availability of legal assistance.

The court applied established principles from Primor Plc v. Stokes Kennedy Crowley, considering the inherent jurisdiction to strike out for want of prosecution, and balancing factors including fairness and prejudice. It found the delay inexcusable and that the balance of justice favored dismissal, especially given the prejudice to the Defendant arising from the death of the first named Defendant, whose evidence would have been crucial. The court rejected the Plaintiff's characterization of the case as predominantly documentary, emphasizing the importance of witness testimony.

The court also determined that the Defendant did not acquiesce in the delay, noting that the Plaintiff bore responsibility to prosecute the case. Overall, the court exercised its discretion to grant the Defendant's application to strike out the proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the relief sought by the second named Defendant, effectively striking out the Plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.

The direct consequence is the dismissal of the Plaintiff's professional negligence claim. The decision underscores the importance of timely prosecution in litigation and the court's readiness to dismiss cases where delay prejudices the Defendant, especially in professional negligence contexts involving deceased key witnesses. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles.