The High Court has set aside the renewal of a summons against one defendant in a claim arising from an allegation of historic sexual abuse, finding that the application to renew the summons did not establish the special circumstances required by court rules.
In a judgment delivered on 3 December 2021, Ms Justice O’Regan ruled on an application by defendant John Moore to set aside a renewal granted on 14 October 2019. The summons had issued on 18 September 2018. The ruling concerns Moore alone; it does not determine the underlying abuse allegation or the claims against the other defendants.
The plaintiff, Shaun Hourigan, alleged that abuse of a sexual nature occurred in 1972 or 1973 and continued until the early 1990s. The judgment records that he made a criminal complaint to An Garda Síochána in December 2015. Moore denied the allegations in correspondence in June 2016. The court noted that particulars sought by Moore’s solicitor were not provided.
The judge said the summons had been in existence for about ten months before the plaintiff’s solicitor sought authority to accept service. A private investigator was instructed in July 2019, when the summons was close to expiry. The investigator’s account said it took two days to locate Moore, although five months passed from the initial engagement to service.
The renewal had been granted ex parte on the stated special circumstance that service was difficult. The supporting affidavit was brief, had no exhibits and did not set out key dates or the history of efforts to serve Moore. It also mistakenly described the case as a medical negligence claim. The judge found no intention to mislead, but said the error was potentially significant and had not been corrected before the renewal was granted.
O’Regan said the plaintiff was confined to the grounds put forward in the renewal affidavit and could not add new grounds at the later hearing. She found that the evidence presented at the renewal stage did not establish special circumstances. She also said that, even if she were wrong on that point, the additional matters advanced by the plaintiff did not meet that threshold, and the balance of justice would not favour keeping the renewal in place.
The judge rejected Moore’s argument that the claim was already statute barred when renewal was granted, saying she did not consider that established in the circumstances. She nevertheless noted that there could be a limitation problem if the renewal were set aside and fresh proceedings were required.
The court ordered the renewal set aside and awarded costs to Moore. The judgment does not resolve the underlying claim against him.