The High Court set aside third-party proceedings brought by KCT Freight Limited against Interlink Ireland Limited, finding that KCT had not acted “as soon as is reasonably possible” in seeking to join Interlink to a personal-injury action.
The ruling concerned only the third-party proceedings. It did not decide the underlying claim by truck-driver Istvan Acs, who alleges he fell from his trailer while working for KCT on 12 November 2011. Interlink had been joined as a third party by court order in December 2015, on the basis that it was allegedly responsible for packing the trailer.
KCT’s defence period expired on 17 December 2014. It sought further particulars from Acs in January and February 2015, then issued a motion to compel replies in March. Acs delivered further replies on 23 April. KCT wrote to Interlink alleging third-party liability on 18 May; Interlink denied liability on 20 July. KCT’s motion to join Interlink issued on 24 November and was heard on 14 December 2015, when leave was granted.
Justice Max Barrett accepted that KCT needed the replies to particulars to assess its legal position and found no avoidable delay in that process. The court also noted that Interlink took more than two months to respond to KCT’s letter. But after Interlink’s denial, KCT let the Summer Vacation pass without issuing its motion, which could have been brought during that period. The court said that delay was fatal to KCT’s position under the statutory requirement, even though the motion was ultimately heard in December rather than October.
The judgment discussed the separate 28-day period in the Rules of the Superior Courts for seeking leave to issue a third-party notice. It noted that missing that period does not ordinarily, by itself, justify striking out third-party proceedings. The court’s decision rested on the requirement in section 27(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act 1961 that a third-party notice be served as soon as reasonably possible.
The court concluded that it would grant Interlink’s application and set aside the third-party proceedings. It did not determine whether Interlink was liable or whether KCT could obtain a contribution from it.