The High Court refused Getinge AB’s application to set aside an order renewing a personal injury summons brought by Patrick Jackman over a 2004 machine accident. The judgment found good reason to maintain the renewal and said there was no serious prejudice to the manufacturer. Its concluding passage does not expressly set out the formal disposition of each item of relief sought in the motion.
Jackman, an employee of the Southern Health Board, injured his fingers while operating a machine made by Getinge AB and controlled, maintained or serviced by Manepa Limited. He issued proceedings in May 2004 seeking damages. The judgment says the summons sent to Getinge in May 2005 was wrongly addressed and the company was wrongly named. The company received the summons at the correct address in September 2007, which the judge described as its first indication that proceedings were under way.
In June 2008, Mr Justice Peart renewed the summons for six months on an ex parte application. Getinge later sought to set aside that order under Order 8, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. It also asked the court to discharge an unconditional appearance entered on its behalf, saying its solicitors had intended to enter a conditional appearance. At the hearing, it additionally sought to set aside the costs order made by Mr Justice Peart.
Mr Justice McMahon accepted, for the purposes of his analysis, that the plaintiff’s solicitor might not have made reasonable efforts to serve Getinge. The attempted service used an incorrect address; a later attempt was outside the permitted year and involved service of the summons rather than the notice required by the rules.
The judge nevertheless found “other good reason” to renew the summons. He considered the balance between the risk that a new claim would be barred by the Statute of Limitations and any prejudice to Getinge. The judgment records evidence that the company had been notified of the accident in February 2004 and knew an accident report had been completed in March that year. The judge also noted that other defendants remained in the proceedings, an accident report existed, and Getinge had not shown serious prejudice from the passage of time.
The court said an application under the rule was not an appeal from the original ex parte decision. It concluded that the information raised by Getinge did not establish that Mr Justice Peart would have refused renewal, and that the renewal order should be confirmed. On Getinge’s request to change its appearance, the judge said its solicitor’s error was comparable to errors, if any, by the plaintiff’s solicitors, but the judgment ends without a separate formal order on that request or the additional costs request.