PUBLICLY QUOTED companies CRH and Readymix asked the High Court yesterday to dismiss a claim against them for damages for breaches of competition law on the grounds that the plaintiffs have delayed for too long in bringing their case.
Three related companies, Framus, Amantiss and Wilbury, are taking a case against CRH and its subsidiaries, Readymix and Kilsaran, alleging that they broke a number of competition law provisions that forced the plaintiffs out of business.
The plaintiffs claim that CRH, Readymix and Kilsaran abused dominant positions in cement and concrete markets and conspired to fix prices.
They also maintain that CRH imposed a restrictive non-compete clause on Amantiss and Wilbury when it bought their assets and goodwill in the early 1990s.
The defendants deny the accusations and say that they intend to defend them vigorously. However, yesterday they asked the High Court to dismiss the claims on the grounds of the plaintiffs’ “inordinate and inexcusable delay” in prosecuting the case.
The proceedings were begun in December 1996, but a statement of claim – a document outlining the case being taken against the defendants – was not delivered for 14 months.
A further amended statement was delivered to the defendants in 2000, four years after the case was initiated.
The proceedings went through a number of stages following that, and the courts dealt with a number of procedural issues up to 2006.
After that point, the defendants say no other steps were taken to advance the case until 2011, when Framus and the other plaintiffs formally told the defendants that they intended to proceed with a High Court action.
The defendants argue that the delay has prejudiced them to the point where justice demands that the claim be dismissed altogether.
Paul Sreenan SC, for CRH, argued yesterday that the High Court should dismiss the claims because of the delay.
The lawyer said the case related to events that took place between 14 and 25 years ago. “A quarter of a century has elapsed since the earliest of the matters complained of by the plaintiff and approximately 14 years since the latest of the matters complained of by the plaintiff,” he said.
Mr Sreenan added that this was a very considerable lapse of time, and said if the case were to go ahead, the court would be asked to rule on a series of complex issues “based on what did or did not happen 25 years ago”.
He pointed out that the plaintiffs have failed to outline the amount of damages that they were seeking.
Mr Sreenan claimed that the evidence is based on hearsay, much of it from witnesses who have said that they were not willing to testify in court, and who the plaintiffs are not willing to subpoena in order to compel them to come to court and give evidence.
“It would be an affront to justice to permit such an exercise in litigation to proceed,” he argued.
Seamus Maye, a director of the plaintiff companies, filed an affidavit pointing out that the hold-up in proceedings between 2006 and 2011 was partly due to his ill health during that period.
However, CRH’s lawyer claimed there was evidence that he was active in a number of commercial and business roles during that time.
