The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision allowing the Courts Service of Ireland to defend a negligence claim brought by Agnieszka Nowak despite having delivered its defence late.
Ms Nowak’s proceedings arise from the handling of a Circuit Court appeal connected to her long-running unfair dismissal case. She alleges that the Courts Service failed to give her proper notice of a February 2022 Circuit Court listing, after which her appeal was struck out when the parties did not appear.
She commenced the present High Court proceedings in September 2024. The Courts Service did not deliver its defence within the initial eight-week period or within a further 28-day extension which Ms Nowak had allowed under the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Ms Nowak then sought judgment in default of defence. By the time that motion was heard, however, the Courts Service had furnished a completed defence on 5 February 2025.
The High Court extended the time for delivery by seven days rather than granting judgment to Ms Nowak. She appealed that decision.
Mr Justice McDonald, delivering the Court of Appeal judgment on 11 May 2026, agreed that the Courts Service had not given a convincing explanation for missing the procedural deadlines. The court also stressed that modern rules allow defendants substantial time to deliver a defence and that judicial attitudes towards delay have become less tolerant.
However, the decisive question was whether extending time was necessary in the interests of justice. The court found that it was. The defence had already been completed and supplied before the motion hearing, the delay was relatively short and Ms Nowak had shown no substantial prejudice from it.
The court rejected her argument that the Courts Service had to prove “special circumstances” before time could be extended. That stricter test applies when a court is asked to set aside an existing default judgment, not when deciding an initial motion for judgment in default of defence.
The appeal was dismissed. The Courts Service was presumptively entitled to its appeal costs, subject to further written submissions.