The High Court refused an application by Patrick Mulcahy to renew a plenary summons in his workplace injury proceedings, finding no good reason for the lengthy delay in progressing the case after an earlier renewal in 2006.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 14 July 2011, also records a separate application by Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ) to set aside the 2006 renewal. The court’s stated operative decision is to refuse the plaintiff’s application for a further renewal; the judgment does not say whether the defendant’s motion was separately determined.
The proceedings seek damages for personal injuries and related losses arising from an accident at work on 4 November 2002, when Mr Mulcahy was employed by the defendant company. A summons issued on 20 January 2004 naming CIÉ was sent for service by registered post. CIÉ replied that the proceedings had been incorrectly served and should be directed to the Secretary of Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail. The defendant’s name was amended by an order in November 2004, and in February 2006 the summons was renewed and its address amended. It was still not served on the correct defendant.
Mr Mulcahy’s solicitor attributed the delay to work handled by an experienced legal executive who went on sick leave, the loss and later recovery of the case file, and the death of the town agent. The solicitor said he had relied on assurances that the file was being dealt with. The defendant argued that the delay was inadequately explained and had hindered investigation, with fading memories and possible loss of documents creating prejudice.
Justice Peart said the delay, particularly from February 2006, was inordinate. He accepted that the defendant had not demonstrated specific actual prejudice, but concluded that unfair prejudice could be presumed given the passage of time. He also noted that Iarnród Éireann, the correct defendant, had not been aware of the proceedings as such.
The court’s decision rested on the absence of a good reason for the delay, which the judge said had to be established before prejudice was considered. He found that the solicitor’s reliance on an employee’s assurances did not excuse the inaction and that an application to replace the missing summons could have been made earlier. The plaintiff’s renewal application was refused. The judgment does not dismiss the underlying claim or state that the defendant’s motion to set aside the 2006 order was granted.