The High Court has set aside an order renewing a plenary summons against the architects involved in a claim over storm damage to a factory roof in Westport, Co Mayo. The ruling concerns the time limit for serving the summons; it does not decide whether the architects were responsible for the damage.
The plaintiff, Allergen Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Limited, said a high wind storm on 26 December 1998 caused extensive damage to its industrial premises. The works had been handed over on 31 July that year. The architects, the third defendants, inspected the damage and issued a report in February 1999 identifying high wind as the primary cause and recommending replacement of the roof with additional bonding and mechanical fixing.
The plenary summons was issued on 23 December 2003, near the end of the six-year limitation period, but was not served on the architects within the following 12 months. The plaintiff obtained an ex parte High Court order on 7 November 2005 renewing the summons for three months. It was served on the architects on 22 November 2005, followed by a statement of claim in January 2006. The architects applied to set aside the renewal before entering an appearance.
The plaintiff relied in part on the need to obtain engineering advice before proceeding against a professional defendant. A detailed report from an engineer was received in September 2004, while the summons could still have been served, but the plaintiff’s solicitor said it was not sent to counsel until September 2005 because of inadvertence. The judge accepted that obtaining a proper basis for a professional negligence claim was a legitimate concern, but found the explanation only partially adequate given the earlier delays and the time left to serve the summons.
The court also considered prejudice to both sides and the requirement that civil proceedings be dealt with within a reasonable time. It noted the architects had reported on the damage soon after it occurred, but had no documents available to defend an alleged failure to supervise the works. The judge found an element of specific prejudice, alongside presumed prejudice arising from the passage of time.
Justice O’Sullivan concluded there was no “good reason” under Order 8, Rule 1 to renew the summons. The court therefore granted the architects’ application and set aside the 7 November 2005 renewal order. The judgment determined the renewal application only; it did not rule on the merits of the underlying claim.