The High Court has refused an application by five defendants trading as Sweeney McGann Solicitors to set aside the renewal of a professional negligence summons brought by Patrick McDonagh. The decision leaves the renewed summons in place; it does not determine whether the solicitors were negligent.
Ms Justice Baker delivered the judgment on 16 January 2018. The plenary summons was issued on 27 November 2014 and renewed by the Master of the High Court on 26 November 2015, shortly before it expired. The defendants applied for the renewal order to be set aside under Order 8, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The application was heard afresh, with the court considering the evidence presented for that hearing.
The action concerns the defendants’ work for Mr McDonagh in earlier proceedings over a petrol leak at Singland Service Station on the Dublin Road in Limerick. In 2007, the High Court apportioned liability in that case 60% against Mr McDonagh and 40% against the other plaintiff. The Supreme Court upheld that judgment in March 2015.
The reason given for not serving the negligence summons within its initial period was that a supportive expert opinion was awaited. The court accepted that an expert solicitor’s report was reasonably necessary to maintain this professional negligence action. It also found the delay in obtaining the report reasonable in the circumstances.
The expert, Mr Bryan Strahan, sought additional files, which the defendants’ firm supplied in June 2015 after reminders. He considered the material incomplete and believed a further engineering report might exist because the earlier High Court judgment had relied on the engineer’s evidence. The engineer later confirmed that no second report existed; Mr Strahan did not receive that clarification until December 2015. The court considered it reasonable for him to seek the relevant material before giving a final view. The summons was served in April 2016, shortly after a draft opinion and a letter of claim were prepared.
The defendants argued that they had not been adequately warned that litigation was contemplated. The judge rejected their characterisation of the correspondence as relating only to the Supreme Court appeal, noting that a 2012 response from the firm had expressly rejected allegations about its handling of the file. No prejudice from the delay was argued.
Applying the test for renewal, the court found good reason for the renewal and concluded that the interests of justice supported it. Ms Justice Baker therefore refused to set aside the Master’s renewal order.