The Supreme Court has refused the Irish Family Planning Association’s application for more time to serve a statement of claim in a trespass case, allowing an appeal by two of the defendants.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McCracken on 4 February 2004, concerned a High Court order that had extended the deadline by one week. The appellants were the second and third named defendants, identified in the case heading as Maurice Colgan and Niamh Nic Mahutna.
The proceedings followed an interim injunction obtained by the Association in March 1999. An interlocutory injunction later restrained the defendants and others from trespassing on specified Association premises, demonstrating near them, obstructing or harassing people entering or leaving clinics, and interfering with staff. That injunction was subsequently discharged as against the second named defendant.
The Association said it had been unclear how to serve a statement of claim because of confusion over the representation of the second and third defendants. The Supreme Court criticised the handling of purported solicitor appointments and appearances, and said the defendants’ conduct was relevant to the court’s discretion over an extension. It did not, however, decide the appeal on that issue.
The court focused on the claim as it had been set out. The original summons sought damages for trespass and an injunction. The statement of claim, filed after the High Court’s extension order, alleged that unnamed people associated with the first defendant had trespassed on 6 March 1999. It alleged that the fourth defendant was among them, but did not allege that the second or third defendants were present or committed the complained-of acts. Counsel for the Association conceded that the two appellants were not present and did not trespass.
The judgment said the case now advanced against them was that, as officers of the first defendant, they had directed the events or conspired with others to bring about the trespass. But neither the summons, the statement of claim nor the affidavit supporting the extension motion pleaded a conspiracy claim. The court considered that a later amendment was unlikely to be allowed after the passage of time and held that it should not extend the deadline to permit service of a claim that did not disclose a cause of action against the appellants on its face.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and refused the application to extend time. The order addressed the extension application; the judgment did not dismiss the underlying proceedings.