The High Court has refused DePuy Ireland Unlimited Company’s application to set aside the renewal of a personal injury summons brought by former employee Michelle Condon Murphy. The court found that special circumstances justified renewal after a 10-day delay in serving the summons.
The ruling by Mr Justice Barr, delivered on 28 April 2023, concerns only whether the summons renewal should stand. It does not determine the underlying personal injury claim.
Ms Condon Murphy alleges that repetitive work at the company’s factory caused injuries to her left shoulder and both elbows. She says she had to work in awkward and static postures and perform repetitive tasks without rotation, and that she stopped working in or around May 2017. These remain allegations in the proceedings.
She issued her personal injury summons on 7 May 2021, but it was not served within the required 12 months. On 23 May 2022, on her ex parte application, the court allowed a three-month renewal; the order was perfected on 30 May and the summons was served on 9 June.
The defendant then sought to set aside that renewal. It argued that the plaintiff’s solicitor firm’s staffing and pandemic-related difficulties did not justify the failure to serve, and that delay could affect its defence, including its ability to plead the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff relied on the short delay, the firm’s circumstances and the hardship she would face if the claim could not proceed.
The judge first rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant was barred from bringing its application because it had entered an appearance. He found that the appearance was sufficiently conditional to preserve the defendant’s objection to service and that it was not estopped from challenging the renewal.
On the substance, the judge found that the 10-day delay was de minimis and that the plaintiff’s solicitors had acted promptly once they discovered the summons had not been served. He accepted evidence of staff absences, including 133 days lost to illness from May to December 2021 and a further 85 days from January to June 2022. Considered cumulatively with the other staffing disruptions and the short delay, those circumstances amounted to special circumstances.
The judge also found that the defendant had notice of the claim and the proceedings, and had not identified material prejudice to its defence from the 10-day delay. He concluded that refusing renewal would cause the plaintiff substantial hardship because the claim would be statute-barred. The application to set aside the renewal was refused.
The judgment did not make final orders on costs. The parties were given two weeks to provide written submissions on the final orders and costs, and the matter was listed for mention on 19 May 2023.