Following on from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kirwan v Connors Ors, the High Court decision in Murphy v Aer Lingus Group PLC Anor applied the reformulated test for dismissing proceedings due to delay in the context of a personal injuries action.
- In Murphy, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s personal injuries action for want of prosecution, citing inordinate and inexcusable delay, thereby affirming the principles in Kirwan.
- In Kirwan the court evaluated prejudice based on the length of delay focusing on specific periods of inactivity (two, four, and five years) and recognised that the passage of time itself can justify dismissal. The "new" test removes the requirement for defendants to demonstrate specific prejudice and establishes a presumption of prejudice where the delay is greater than two years.
- In the case of Murphy, the plaintiff claimed that during her employment as cabin crew she suffered personal injuries when an aircraft “landed heavily” on a flight from Dublin to Birmingham on 13 August 2011. By the time the High Court came to hear the application to dismiss for delay, it had been over 12 years since proceedings were initially commenced on 9 August 2013.
- When considering the chronology of events in Ms Murphy’s case, the Court noted that the proceedings were characterised by prolonged and unexplained periods of inactivity amounting to over seven years in total, despite repeated attempts by the defendants to move the matter forward. The Court also noted that the plaintiff’s solicitors ultimately sought to come off record, having lost contact with their client for several years.
- Applying the principles in Kirwan,the High Court reaffirmed that a cumulative period of complete inactivity exceeding five years may justify dismissal unless a “pressing exigency of justice” requires otherwise. No such exigency was found to exist in this case.
The Court further emphasised the inherent prejudice in seeking to adjudicate a fact-sensitive claim nearly fifteen years after the alleged events. As a result, the Court granted the application to dismiss. This judgment makes clear that absent justification, sustained delay and inactivity, particularly where exceeding the five-year threshold set out in Kirwan will result in dismissal in personal injury cases.
