The High Court has refused an application by College Freight Limited to set aside an order renewing a personal injury summons brought by Alicja Klodkiewicz. The court did not decide whether either defendant was liable for the 2012 road accident or determine the value of the plaintiff’s claim.
Ms Justice Butler ruled on 1 February 2021 that the interests of justice did not require the renewal order to be set aside. The application was made under Order 8, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The judge considered the matter afresh; it was not an appeal from the earlier decision to renew the summons.
The proceedings arise from an accident on 27 April 2012, when a stationary car occupied by the plaintiff was struck by an articulated lorry driven by Marcin Palluch while working for College Freight. A passenger in the car died, and the plaintiff was rendered unconscious and suffered physical and psychiatric injuries, the judgment records.
The summons was issued on 15 September 2015 but was not served within its initial 12-month period. In October 2018, Meenan J renewed it for six months. After a further order allowed service of a copy summons, the proceedings were served on the company and its liquidator on 15 March 2019. Allen J later granted retrospective permission to proceed against the company in liquidation. College Freight did not challenge that permission.
The company argued that the plaintiff had not shown a “good reason” for renewal. It said the fact that refusal would leave her claim statute-barred could not, by itself, justify renewal, and relied on the absence of an explanation for the previous solicitor’s failure to serve the summons. It accepted that, if good reason were established, the balance of justice would favour the plaintiff; it raised no specific prejudice beyond the presumptive prejudice associated with delay.
The judge held that the limitation consequences alone did not entitle the plaintiff to renewal, but could be considered alongside other circumstances. Those included early formal notice of the claim to the defendants and insurers, the insurer’s participation in the Personal Injuries Assessment Board process and consent to assessment, and efforts by the current solicitor to obtain the file and take the steps needed to serve proceedings. The judge treated the previous solicitor’s unexplained failure separately and did not accept it as a good reason.
Ms Justice Butler concluded that the combined circumstances amounted to good reason. She also found that the delay did not warrant refusal, given the early notice and the existence of other proceedings arising from the same accident. The court therefore refused College Freight’s application. The renewal order remains in place; the judgment makes no finding on the underlying personal injury claim.