The High Court has reinstated Catherine McGoohan’s personal injuries proceedings after finding special circumstances to explain the failure to comply with an “unless” order made during the Covid-19 restrictions.
In an ex-tempore judgment delivered on 28 November 2023, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson set aside the dismissal of the proceedings and granted the relief sought by McGoohan. She ordered that McGoohan bear the costs of the motion.
The case concerns an event alleged to have occurred on or about 18 April 2014. The personal injuries summons was issued in December 2016 against the Department of Transport, Sports and Tourism, the Minister for Transport, Sports and Tourism, the National Sports Campus Development Authority, NSCDA (Operations) Limited and the National Aquatic Centre.
In March 2021, the parties consented to an order allowing four weeks for an exchange of documents, including information about witnesses, special damages and expert reports. The judge said it appeared neither side complied within the permitted time. The plaintiff later provided a schedule and supporting material in March 2022, after the extended deadline had passed.
In November 2021, an “unless” order gave the plaintiff a further four weeks to comply, failing which the claim would be struck out. The judge noted that the motion leading to that order had been served by registered post at the plaintiff’s solicitors’ Letterkenny address, although the summons specified a Dublin address for service. She said no explanation had been given for serving the motion at the other address. It was accepted that email was widely used for communications during the pandemic, but the summons’ address for service had not been changed.
The judge said she had significant reservations about whether the plaintiff’s explanations, including the impact of the pandemic and an expectation of advance communication, amounted to special circumstances. She nevertheless found that special circumstances existed, taking account of the service address, the 2021 order’s obligations on both parties and the procedural restrictions in force when the “unless” order was made.
Having found special circumstances, the court concluded that the interests of justice justified reinstating the proceedings. The judgment records that the plaintiff had complied with the relevant rules by the time of the motion, while the judge was unclear whether the defendants had done so. The court’s order does not determine the underlying personal injuries claim.