A smoker has lost her High Court bid to take legal action against a number of tobacco companies. The decision is expected to have implications for similar litigation brought by some 138 other smokers.
Mr Justice Quirke yesterday rejected an appeal by the woman against an order of the Master of the High Court who had dismissed, for want of prosecution, her claim against three tobacco companies - John Player and Sons Ltd, Rothmans of Pall Mall (Ireland) Ltd and Benson and Hedges (Dublin) Ltd.
He returned the matter to April 24th next to allow the sides time to consider his decision.
The woman had claimed damages for personal injuries, loss and damage.
She claimed the defendants had exposed her to the risk of injury by causing or permitting her to smoke cigarettes when they knew, or ought to have known, it was unsafe and dangerous to do so and by continuing to manufacture, distribute and market cigarettes without warning, or adequately warning her of the dangers associated with smoking and exposure to tobacco and tobacco smoke.
Mr Justice Quirke noted that claims in similar, if not identical terms, had been made by the woman's solicitors, Ward and Fitzpatrick, on behalf of 137 other smokers.
The judge noted the woman's claim was commenced by plenary summons in December 1997 and that, almost a year later, on December 22nd, 1998, the summons was served on the defendants.
The defendants had entered appearances by January 21st, 1999, within 30 days of the summons being served on them.
In March 2002, the defendants issued notices of intention to proceed with the action. In September 2002, the defendants applied to have the actions struck out for want of prosecution.
On November 22nd and 26th, 2002, the plaintiff's solicitors had delivered statements of claim against all three defendants in identical terms.
In orders on November 2002, April 2003, and August 2003, the Master of the High Court had struck out the claims against the three defendants.
The plaintiff then appealed the master's orders.
Dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Quirke noted that four years and 11 months had elapsed between the issuing of the plenary summons on behalf of the plaintiff and the delivery of the statements of claim.
He also noted the plaintiff's solicitors had accepted an offer by the defendants to collect her lifetime medical records and that the defendants rejected the claim that the collection of those records had caused or contributed to the delay in delivering the statements of claim.
The judge said he had to consider three issues - whether there was inordinate delay in delivery the statements of claim; if there was such delay, was it excusable; and, if it was inordinate and inexcusable, was the balance of justice in favour of or against the case proceeding.
The judge found the delay of some 12 months between the issuing and service of the plenary summons and the further delay of some three years and 10 months in delivering the statements of claim was inordinate and inexcusable.
He said it was claimed the woman had developed emphysema which was first diagnosed about December 1994. It was difficult to avoid the conclusion that "virtually nothing" was done to prosecute her claim between March 1999 and November 2001, the judge said.
