Judgment: 2026-05-13 · Court archive

High Court refuses bid to rewrite orders in long-running wrongful dismissal case

High Court · [2026] IEHC 295

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Agnieszka Nowak
  • Intesa Sanpaolo Vita S.P.A
  • Mr Justice Garrett Simons
What

High Court refuses bid to rewrite orders in long-running wrongful dismissal case

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has refused an application by Agnieszka Nowak to rewrite perfected orders made in her long-running wrongful dismissal proceedings against Intesa Sanpaolo Vita S.P.A., and has also rejected her attempt to revive two motions for judgment in default of defence.

The High Court has refused an application by Agnieszka Nowak to rewrite perfected orders made in her long-running wrongful dismissal proceedings against Intesa Sanpaolo Vita S.P.A., and has also rejected her attempt to revive two motions for judgment in default of defence.

Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the amendments sought went beyond correcting a clerical mistake or accidental omission and would instead undermine the intention of an earlier High Court judgment. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs of the latest applications.

The proceedings arise from Ms Nowak's claim that the purported termination of her employment in August or September 2015 was unlawful. She began two High Court actions in 2016 and 2017, which were later consolidated.

In May 2024, the High Court refused the defendant's applications to dismiss the actions for delay, despite finding that Ms Nowak's delay had been inordinate and inexcusable. The court instead directed that the cases be readied for trial, including by deeming an amended statement of claim properly delivered and requiring the defendant to file a defence by 10 June 2024. The defence was filed on that date.

Ms Nowak later sought to delete references to her earlier default-of-defence motions from the perfected orders, re-enter those motions and have the court itself measure her recoverable outlay rather than continue with the Legal Costs Adjudicator process.

Mr Justice Simons held that the default motions had already been rendered moot by the delivery of the defence and the earlier case-management directions. He said Ms Nowak had also previously relied on the orders she now sought to alter and had delayed almost two years before attempting to revive the motions.

The judge added that even if the motions could be re-entered, they would inevitably fail because the defendant had delivered its defence within weeks of losing its dismissal application and by the deadline fixed by the court.

The application to amend the perfected orders and the application to re-enter the default motions were both refused.

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