The High Court has refused a Swedish company’s applications to set aside the renewal of summonses in two proceedings brought by accountant Michael Power, while granting a Swiss company’s application in the personal-injuries case only.
The ruling concerns procedural steps to renew the summonses and serve them outside Ireland. It does not decide the underlying claims. Power says he suffered personal injuries during employment between January 2016 and February 2017, and separately claims he suffered detriment after making a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The defendants dispute jurisdiction, among other matters.
The personal-injuries summons was issued in July 2019. In the protected-disclosure proceedings, a plenary summons issued in February 2020. The High Court had renewed both summonses in June 2021 and granted leave for service outside Ireland. The Swedish defendant and the Swiss defendant then sought to set that order aside.
Justice Emily Egan found that the Swedish defendant had received notice of the claims early, and that the personal-injuries summons was sent for service in Sweden but was not served until September 2020, after it had expired. The delay by the Swedish receiving agency and the surrounding efforts to serve the proceedings amounted to special circumstances. The judge also found that the defendant had early notice and had not shown specific prejudice that outweighed the consequences for Power if renewal were refused. Its challenges to renewal in both cases were dismissed.
The judge reached different conclusions for the Swiss defendant. The personal-injuries summons was not served before expiry: attempts used an incorrect country and address, and involved procedural errors. The judge held that these circumstances did not establish special circumstances justifying renewal. She therefore granted the Swiss defendant’s application to set aside renewal of that summons.
The protected-disclosure summons against the Swiss defendant had been served before it expired, though irregularly. The Swiss authority issued a certificate confirming service, and the defendant had received early notice of the claim. The judge found special circumstances and concluded they justified renewal, despite the service defects and time taken to bring the renewal application. The Swiss defendant’s application concerning that summons was refused.
The judgment addresses only whether the summonses could remain renewed and be served outside the jurisdiction. The underlying personal-injury and protected-disclosure claims remain unresolved.