The High Court refused an application by Emma Oakes to extend the time for bringing a defamation action against the proprietor of a SPAR shop on Mountjoy Street, Dublin 7. The order was made on 10 September 2019; Mr Justice Garrett Simons gave his reasons in a judgment delivered on 13 September.
The proposed action concerned an alleged incident on 12 September 2017. An earlier Circuit Court claim, filed within the usual one-year limit, named Spar (Ireland) Ltd. as defendant. Oakes later accepted that it was the wrong defendant. The judgment records that a letter from Zurich Insurance in July 2019 said individual shop proprietors were responsible for trading and customer dealings, and that a solicitor identified the proprietor as Loye Wei after calling the shop on 9 September.
Oakes sought a direction extending the limitation period to two years after the alleged incident. Her application was brought urgently and ex parte, with the intended new defendant not properly identified in the application. The court held that the rules required an application to be made by originating notice of motion naming the intended defendant as respondent. Notice was necessary so the defendant could address possible prejudice and evidence affected by the delay. The ex parte procedure was irregular and the application had to be dismissed.
The judge also found the delay inexcusable. He said the correct defendant should have been identified earlier and that the application was not made until two days before the two-year period was due to expire, leaving too little time to give the required notice. He concluded that this delay alone justified refusing the requested direction.
Considering prejudice as well, the judge described the alleged statement as a refusal to serve Oakes and an accusation that she was rude and causing trouble. The claim alleged that this happened in front of onlookers; the court noted there was no evidence they knew her identity. The judge considered the prejudice to Oakes from refusing an extension minimal. He also identified potential prejudice to the intended defendant from being notified about two years after the event, including the lost opportunity to take steps that might assist a defence, and from additional costs if proceedings were started in the High Court and remitted to the Circuit Court.
The order refused the extension application. The judgment did not determine the merits of the defamation allegation or prevent Oakes from issuing proceedings; it said any such proceedings could be vulnerable to a limitation defence.