The Court of Appeal has allowed Coras Pipeline Services Limited’s appeal against a High Court order setting aside its third-party notice against Northstone (N.I.) Limited. The appeal concerned the timing of the notice and Northstone’s later application to have it set aside, not the underlying personal injuries claim.
André O’Connor, a construction worker employed by Coras, alleges he injured his thumb at a work site in Knocklane, Dublin, on 7 January 2015. He says a gust of wind moved a pedestrian barrier while he was helping to put fallen barriers back in place. The judgment records those circumstances as his claims; the Court of Appeal did not determine whether the accident occurred or who was liable.
Coras sought to join Northstone, which had retained it for water-meter installation work, as a third party. The High Court granted leave to join Northstone in January 2018. Northstone was served the following month and applied to set aside the notice in September 2018. The High Court granted that application on 26 November 2018.
The Court of Appeal considered the statutory requirement that a third-party notice be served “as soon as is reasonably possible”. It also held that the same timing requirement applies to an application to set aside such a notice. The court noted that Coras had no good explanation for the delay after its lawyers received the relevant contract documentation in April 2017, and upheld the High Court’s finding that Coras had not acted as soon as reasonably possible.
However, the Court of Appeal said Northstone’s delay also had to be considered. Northstone waited nearly five months after service to seek counsel’s advice on whether to apply to set aside the notice, and its explanation for the subsequent delay was unclear. The court concluded that Northstone had not acted as soon as reasonably possible either. It also accepted Coras’s argument that the High Court judge’s remarks about possible separate contribution proceedings should not have formed part of the decision, but treated them as non-binding observations.
Despite upholding the finding against Coras on the timing of service, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The judgment does not state that the third-party notice was reinstated or specify a replacement order. On costs, the court gave a provisional view that Coras should receive its appeal costs, with either party allowed 14 days to seek a further hearing on that issue. Justices Woulfe and Donnelly agreed with the judgment.