High Court dismisses 2011 ex-slaughterhouse worker’s action over injury from animal kick – The Irish Times

The Supreme Court has dismissed the case of a former slaughterhouse worker after he was kicked and injured by an animal 15 years ago.

Mr Justice David Nolan found that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of plaintiff Vanderiei Jacinto de Figuerdo in progressing his 2011 case against his former employer: Kepak Athleague and Kepak Group Limited.

Allowing the case to proceed would place Kepak at a disadvantage, and there is a “clear risk of memory loss” over an incident that allegedly occurred in 2009, the judge said.

The company has also had to set aside funds for this claim, giving rise to a financial burden, he added.

The judge said Mr De Figuerdo, a Brazilian national who has lived in Ireland for at least 15 years, claimed he had been assigned to the killing cage at Kepak’s Athleague factory.

In one case, on May 6, 2009, an animal’s legs became entangled in the cage and were not killed immediately, the prosecutor alleged. Mr De Figuerdo claimed that another employee allowed the next animal into the pen before clearing it away. He claimed that the next animal started kicking and hitting him on the thigh, causing him to fall backwards and injure himself.

His claims were denied.

The judge said Mr De Figuerdo brought his personal injury case at the High Court too late and then delayed its progress.

In 2021, Kepak filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. It was alleged that several people with direct knowledge of Mr. De Figuerdo’s employment, practices, training and supervision had left the company. Kepak said it had made inquiries about their whereabouts but could not find them, so it was unable to secure their presence to give evidence at a trial in the case.

The judge said more than ten years have passed since Kepak asked the plaintiff for his medical records, which have still not been made public.

Mr De Figuerdo’s lawyer argued that there was no excessive delay, but that if excessive delay had occurred, it was excusable.

The judge said there was a very significant delay between the proceedings being issued and Kepak filing his defense in 2017.

Overall, he found that the delay on the part of the claimant had been inexcusably excessive and that fairness warranted the dismissal of the case.