The High Court discharged an appearance entered for the defendants in a dispute over a solicitor’s claim to a King’s Inns barrister-at-law degree, then set aside service of the summons because it had been served outside the 12-month period and had not been renewed.
The ruling by Mr Justice Denis McDonald concerned a preliminary application about the defendants’ appearance and service of proceedings. It did not decide the plaintiff’s underlying claim that refusing to confer the degree breached a contract.
The plaintiff said he had completed the part-time degree course, passed its assessments, paid €12,330 in fees and attended the required dinners. His counsel told the court he did not intend to practise as a barrister. The defendants’ application arose because the plenary summons, issued on 4 October 2016, was posted on 4 October 2017 and reached them on 9 October. The judge said service was deemed to have taken place between 5 and 9 October, after the summons’s 12-month period had expired.
The defendants sought to discharge an unqualified appearance filed by Crowley Millar solicitors on 6 November 2017. They argued it had been entered by mistake: the King’s Inns had already instructed O’Connor solicitors, who advised against entering an unqualified appearance while preparing an application to challenge service. The plaintiff disputed that account, pointing to evidence that Crowley Millar had been instructed to enter an appearance and seeking the instruction letter. The judge noted that the letter was not before the court.
The judge concluded that Crowley Millar had entered the appearance without knowing O’Connor solicitors were already acting or that a decision had been made to challenge service. He found this was a misapprehension of fact. He also found the plaintiff had not suffered prejudice: within four weeks of the appearance being filed, the plaintiff knew the defendants intended to challenge service, leaving time to consider an application to renew the summons.
The court therefore discharged the appearance and set aside service under Order 12, Rule 26. The judge expressed no view on whether the court could discharge an appearance on grounds other than mistake. He said the plaintiff should prima facie recover costs arising from the mistake, including the costs of the correspondence and application, subject to hearing the parties’ submissions. The judgment does not resolve the degree claim or decide any renewal application.