The High Court has refused the State defendants’ application to set aside renewal of a summons in Patrick Carpenter’s case over alleged conditions during his imprisonment. The ruling leaves the renewal in place; it does not determine the merits of his claim or establish that any rights were breached.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 29 July 2019. The proceedings concern allegations that detention in cells without in-cell sanitation, including “slopping out”, breached constitutional and European Convention rights. Carpenter alleges that his claim relates to detention in 2009 and 2010. The judgment records that he seeks declarations and damages, but makes no finding on the alleged conditions or any resulting injury.
The plenary summons issued in 2015 but was not served before it expired 12 months later. On 22 May 2017, an ex parte application resulted in an order renewing it for six months. The defendants then applied under Order 8, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts to set that renewal order aside. The court treated that challenge as requiring a fresh assessment of whether renewal should have been granted.
In an affidavit for the renewal application, Carpenter’s solicitor said the summons went unserved because of an administrative error and that he had mistakenly believed it had been served. The defendants argued that the delay prejudiced them, including by requiring them to defend an old claim and potentially raise a limitation defence. The judge said solicitor default was not a satisfactory explanation for delay, that a plaintiff is responsible for a solicitor’s acts or omissions, and that there had been a striking delay.
However, the judge found “other good reason” to leave the renewal order intact. He pointed to the High Court’s 2017 decision in Simpson, which suggested Carpenter’s allegations might have substance, while stressing that Carpenter was not thereby sure to succeed. He also considered the seriousness of the alleged rights breaches and the fact that many similar cases were awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in Simpson without meaningful progress.
The court declined to make the set-aside order sought by the defendants. The judgment does not resolve Carpenter’s underlying claim, decide the defendants’ limitation argument, or award damages.