Judgment: 2016-02-02 · Court archive

High Court sets aside second renewal of summons in estate dispute

The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to renew the summons after the first renewal had expired; it did not determine the underlying claims against the solicitors.

High Court · [2016] IEHC 37

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Geoff Meagher (Plaintiff)
  • Gerard William Sandys
  • Bryan C. Brophy
  • Maureen O’Connell
What

The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to renew the summons after the first renewal had expired; it did not determine the underlying claims against the solicitors.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Ms Justice Baker held that a second or later renewal must be sought during the currency of the existing renewed summons. She concluded that the specific renewal rules did not allow the court to use the general power to extend procedural time limits to overcome that deadline. Nor, she held, could the court rely on its inherent jurisdiction to extend the time.

The High Court set aside an order that had renewed a plenary summons for a second time in a dispute over the administration of an estate, ruling that the renewal application came after the court’s jurisdiction to grant it had expired.

The proceedings were brought by Geoff Meagher, acting as National President of the Society of St Vincent de Paul, against solicitors Gerard William Sandys and Bryan C. Brophy. The claim seeks damages for devastavit, negligence and breach of duty arising from their administration of Maureen O’Connell’s estate. The judgment describes the defendants as the estate’s executors and as solicitors acting in the estate.

The summons issued on 16 April 2014. The Master of the High Court renewed it for six months on 24 March 2015. After that period expired, the plaintiff applied to the High Court, without notice to the defendants, for a further renewal. On 12 October 2015, the court granted that application. The defendants later sought to set the order aside, arguing that the second renewal could only have been granted while the first renewal remained in force.

Ms Justice Baker held that a second or later renewal must be sought during the currency of the existing renewed summons. She concluded that the specific renewal rules did not allow the court to use the general power to extend procedural time limits to overcome that deadline. Nor, she held, could the court rely on its inherent jurisdiction to extend the time.

The plaintiff said that three attempts to serve each defendant had been made on 9, 18 and 22 September 2015, and alleged that the defendants had evaded service. The defendants disputed that allegation. The judge said the question of whether there was good reason to renew did not arise: in her view, the court had no jurisdiction to consider it once the application was made outside the permitted period.

The defendants’ application succeeded and the second renewal order was set aside. The judgment addressed the validity of that renewal; it did not decide the merits of the estate-related claims.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review