The High Court has set aside an order renewing a personal injury summons against the Trustees of Bridge United AFC after finding that the solicitor’s administrative oversight did not amount to the “special circumstances” required to extend the service deadline.
The judgment, delivered electronically by Mr Justice Barr on 14 May 2021, concerns an accident on 20 December 2016. The plaintiff said he tripped over a concrete lip beside or behind a goal while playing football on Bridge United AFC’s astroturf pitch, injuring his right knee. The pitch had been laid by the second defendant, Penturf Limited.
The summons issued in May 2018, but was not served by the deadline of 20 May 2019. The plaintiff’s solicitor discovered the omission in August 2019. On 14 October 2019, the High Court renewed the summons, recording “an administrative oversight” as the special circumstance. The renewed summons was served on the club in November 2019. The club later applied to set that renewal aside.
The plaintiff argued that renewal was justified because the claim was still within the limitation period when renewal was sought, and the club had received early notice of the accident. Correspondence had passed through its insurers, and a joint engineering inspection took place in late 2017. The plaintiff said there was no prejudice to the club. The club argued that solicitor inadvertence was not a special circumstance and that delay could prejudice its defence.
Justice Barr treated the application to set aside the renewal as a de novo hearing, assessed by reference to the circumstances when renewal was sought. He held that the plaintiff could not add a new special circumstance at this stage. On the balance of probabilities, the limitation point had not been raised in the original renewal application and was not identified in the October 2019 order. The judge also found that being within the limitation period, by itself, did not constitute a special circumstance justifying renewal.
The court accepted that there was no discernible prejudice to the club: it had early notice, the accident circumstances had been described, and the pitch condition had not changed. But absence of prejudice was not enough to satisfy the special-circumstances test. The judge also found that the solicitor’s inadvertence, although understandable, was not unusual or out of the ordinary.
The court therefore set aside the renewal of the summons against the first defendant, the Trustees of Bridge United AFC. It did not determine the underlying injury claim or the liability of either defendant. The parties were given two weeks to submit written arguments on the final order, costs and any ancillary matters.