Egan v The Governor and company of Bank of Ireland & Ors (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 294 (20 December 2022)

Egan v The Governor and company of Bank of Ireland & Ors (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 294 (20 December 2022)

The delay in prosecuting the proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable, particularly after the plaintiff instructed solicitors. The plaintiff failed to progress the case for nearly three years without valid excuse. Mr. Potter-Cogan's inability to give evidence due to severe cognitive impairment constitutes prejudice at the top end of the scale, rendering a fair trial impossible. The balance of justice strongly favours dismissal.

Citation
[2022] IECA 294
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Brian Egan; First Named Defendant: The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland; Second Named Defendant/respondent: John G. Dillon-Leetch and Robert Potter-Cogan (Dillon-Leetch & Sons Solicitors, now Dillon-Leetch & Comerford Solicitors); Third Named Defendant: Sean Maloney & Associates
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Dismissal for Delay
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Professional Negligence, Fair Trial, Balance of Justice, Prejudice Due to Delay
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Delay in Prosecution Fair Trial Balance of Justice Prejudice Due to Delay

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Egan

Plaintiff/appellant

The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland

First Named Defendant

John G. Dillon-Leetch and Robert Potter-Cogan (Dillon-Leetch & Sons Solicitors, now Dillon-Leetch & Comerford Solicitors)

Second Named Defendant/respondent

Sean Maloney & Associates

Third Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Dismissal for Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in prosecuting proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether prejudice to the defendant warranted dismissal
  3. 3 Whether balance of justice favoured dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in prosecuting the proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable, particularly after the plaintiff instructed solicitors. The plaintiff failed to progress the case for nearly three years without valid excuse. Mr. Potter-Cogan's inability to give evidence due to severe cognitive impairment constitutes prejudice at the top end of the scale, rendering a fair trial impossible. The balance of justice strongly favours dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • Claim against the Firm dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay.
  • No order as to costs specified.