The High Court renewed a summons in a personal injury case after finding that the defendants’ insurers had not been prejudiced in any real sense by the delay. The ruling allowed the claim to proceed; it did not decide liability or damages.
The plaintiff says she suffered back injuries when a vehicle driven by the second defendant struck the rear of her car on 30 May 2001. The first defendant owned the vehicle. The plaintiff issued proceedings on 15 April 2004, but the summons was not served within the 12 months permitted by the court rules. She applied to renew it under Order 8, rule 1.
The plaintiff’s solicitor said he had difficulty obtaining medical reports because her back condition and treatment were continuing, and because she had a back injury from a 1987 accident. He said he was also trying to obtain records from that earlier case. The court recounted efforts to obtain reports from the plaintiff’s doctors and consultants, but said only two reports had been received by the time of the application.
The defendants opposed renewal, arguing that no good reason had been shown. Their solicitors had repeatedly asked for the summons to be served after the proceedings were issued. The plaintiff’s solicitor did not respond to those requests until June 2005, when he sent the summons for acceptance of service. The defendants’ solicitors then pointed out that it had expired. The renewal application was first brought before the court in July 2006.
Mr Justice Michael Peart described the failure to respond to the service requests and the further delay in applying as serious lapses. But he said the solicitor had otherwise made genuine efforts to obtain medical evidence, the insurers had been notified of the claim at an early stage, and the case was unlikely to turn on liability. The insurers had already arranged a medical examination and had expressed willingness to discuss settlement.
The judge concluded that the defendants’ insurers had not been prejudiced to any extent by the delay. He granted leave to renew the summons, reasoning that it would be unjust to effectively bar the claim because of the solicitor’s lapse in service amid the difficulties obtaining medical reports. He added that demonstrated prejudice could have tipped the balance against renewal. The judgment therefore concerns only renewal of the summons, not the underlying injury claim.