The High Court has set aside an order extending the time for Tara Brady to renew a summons in her personal injury claim arising from a 2015 road traffic accident. The court found that the plaintiff’s solicitor had not satisfactorily explained why the summons was not served after his office reopened in May 2020.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Niamh Hyland on 7 December 2021. The defendants, Robert Byrne and Daniel Byrne, had applied to set aside an order made by Cross J. on 16 February 2021, which extended the time for leave to renew the summons. Cross J. had identified the closure of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s practice during the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting backlog as special circumstances.
Brady alleges that the first defendant caused a collision while driving a vehicle belonging to the second defendant. She claims injuries to her left hip, thigh and knee, as well as psychological injuries, and says she was admitted to St Patrick’s psychiatric hospital for six weeks in 2017. Liability was not admitted. The judgment said two insurer emails inviting settlement discussions did not amount to an admission.
The summons was issued on 17 May 2019 and, in the ordinary course, should have been served by 16 May 2020. The plaintiff’s solicitor said his practice closed on 27 March 2020 for two months, and that Covid-related restrictions, reduced staffing and a backlog disrupted the firm’s work. The judge accepted that the pandemic was exceptional, but found no substantive explanation for failing to serve the summons or seek an extension within a reasonable time after the office reopened, no later than 26 May 2020.
The judgment also considered that the solicitor’s firm had acted for Brady in another High Court matter in October 2020, including attending court and settling that case. The judge said this activity was difficult to reconcile with the claim that pandemic disruption prevented service in this case. She did not find a breach of the duty of candour over the earlier matter’s omission from the original renewal application.
Justice Hyland accepted that refusing renewal would likely leave Brady’s claim statute-barred and that the resulting prejudice to her was considerably greater than the relatively mild prejudice to the defendants. However, she ruled that this imbalance did not make up for the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. She concluded that special circumstances had not been established and set aside Cross J.’s extension order. The decision concerned renewal of the summons; the judgment did not determine liability for the alleged collision or the injury claim.