The High Court has set aside a judgment in default against three meat companies after finding that their barrister’s family circumstances prevented him from finalising a defence before a court deadline.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled that the defendants had established special circumstances under Order 27, rule 15(2) of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He ordered them to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the original motion for judgment in default and of the application to set that judgment aside. The costs are to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree them.
The underlying personal injuries claim was brought by Pedro Sabino de Souza, who alleged negligence in aspects of his employment as a general operative at the defendants’ meat production plant in Ballyjamesduff, Co Cavan. The judgment concerns only the defendants’ application to set aside the default judgment; it does not determine the injury claims or liability.
The court had made an unless order on 23 May 2022, giving the defendants 10 weeks, until 31 July, to deliver a defence or face judgment for the plaintiff, with damages to be assessed. The defence was not delivered by that date. The defendants sent it on 20 September, but the plaintiff rejected it as late.
The defendants’ solicitor said he had not understood that his firm had consented to an unless order. The judge held that the solicitor’s lack of awareness, after a staff member agreed to the order and a copy was sent to the firm and counsel, would not by itself amount to special circumstances.
However, the defendants’ counsel was dealing with his mother’s serious illness and her death on 28 July, as well as his father’s ill health. The judge found that these exceptional circumstances meant counsel could not prioritise completing the defence and the solicitor did not press him for it before the deadline. The judge considered counsel’s prompt work on the file before those circumstances arose and found it likely that, absent them, a final defence would have been delivered in time.
The court also found the defendants had an arguable defence, including a claimed limitation defence to part of the case and a denial of liability supported, they said, by engineering evidence. The judge said any prejudice to the plaintiff from setting aside the default judgment could be addressed through costs. The personal injuries action can therefore proceed without the default judgment in place; the court made no finding on the merits of the allegations.