The High Court has refused an application by two hospital defendants to set aside the renewal of a personal injury summons in a medical negligence case. The ruling concerns whether the proceedings may continue; it does not decide whether negligence occurred.
The plaintiff alleges negligence before and after her child’s birth on 27 February 2016. She issued the summons on 13 March 2018 but did not serve it within the 12-month period. After an ex parte application, Barr J. ordered its renewal on 28 May 2019. The summons was served on the second and third defendants on 14 June 2019, and they applied to set aside the renewal on 4 October 2019. The plaintiff now seeks to proceed only against those two defendants.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff had not shown the special circumstances required by amended court rules. The judge followed an earlier High Court decision, Ellahi, on the disputed legal test: special circumstances were required to extend time for the renewal application, while good reason remained the test for renewing the summons. She said the same circumstances met either test for renewal in this case.
The plaintiff relied on delays in obtaining expert medical reports. But the judge found that the reports had been obtained before the summons expired, and that the actual reason for non-service was the solicitor’s inadvertence. A letter sent to the two defendants on 10 March 2019 said the summons would be served to protect the plaintiff’s position and that proceedings would continue if there were no response. The court considered this evidence that the solicitor intended to serve before expiry and had notified the defendants of the intended proceedings.
The judge identified the short delay—about 10 weeks after expiry—and the absence of identified significant prejudice to the defendants as relevant circumstances. She also considered the risk that refusal to renew could leave the plaintiff outside the limitation period, while acknowledging that being statute-barred would not by itself justify renewal.
The court concluded that special circumstances justified extending time to apply for renewal and that there was good reason to renew the summons. It therefore refused the defendants’ application to set aside Barr J.’s order. The judgment does not determine the underlying negligence allegations.