Dooley v Patterson Bannon Architects Ltd & Ors (Approved) [2023] IEHC 163 (30 March 2023)

Dooley v Patterson Bannon Architects Ltd & Ors (Approved) [2023] IEHC 163 (30 March 2023)

The court held that the proceedings were not 'late start' given the complexity and the time required to prepare multi-party professional negligence litigation. The court found that both parties were responsible for delays, with the contractor itself culpable for significant periods of delay. There was insufficient evidence of real or tangible prejudice to the contractor, as the case would turn on expert evidence rather than witness recollection. The balance of justice did not favour striking out the proceedings.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 163
Parties
Plaintiff: Francis Dooley; First Defendant: Patterson Bannon Architects Limited; Second Defendant: McCarthy Consulting Engineers Limited; Third Defendant: Mulcahy McDonagh & Partners Limited; Fourth Defendant: Calum Maguire Partnership; Fifth Defendant (contractor): Clancy Construction Management Limited t/a Clancy Construction
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence/construction / Application to Strike Out for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay
Outcome
Application to strike out refused; proceedings to continue.
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Striking Out Proceedings, Balance of Justice, Prejudice, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Construction Law Professional Negligence Delay in Prosecution Striking Out Proceedings Balance of Justice Prejudice Limitation Periods

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Dooley

Plaintiff

Patterson Bannon Architects Limited

First Defendant

McCarthy Consulting Engineers Limited

Second Defendant

Mulcahy McDonagh & Partners Limited

Third Defendant

Calum Maguire Partnership

Fourth Defendant

Clancy Construction Management Limited t/a Clancy Construction

Fifth Defendant (contractor)

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence/construction / Application to Strike Out for Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's action should be struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay and want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the delay was inordinate and inexcusable
  3. 3 Whether the balance of justice favours dismissal of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proceedings were not 'late start' given the complexity and the time required to prepare multi-party professional negligence litigation. The court found that both parties were responsible for delays, with the contractor itself culpable for significant periods of delay. There was insufficient evidence of real or tangible prejudice to the contractor, as the case would turn on expert evidence rather than witness recollection. The balance of justice did not favour striking out the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused; proceedings to continue.

Orders

  • The contractor's application to strike out the plaintiff's action for inordinate and inexcusable delay is refused.
  • The proceedings against the fifth defendant (contractor) are to continue.