The High Court has brought Humphrey O’Keeffe’s personal injury proceedings to an end by setting aside an order that had renewed a summons issued six years earlier.
Mr O’Keeffe alleged that he was injured on October 10, 2000 while working on a construction site after falling from unsecured scaffolding. He sued G & T Crampton Limited and Patrick O’Connor Builders (Waterford) Limited, with the plenary summons issued on July 5, 2001.
The proceedings were never served during their original period of validity. Correspondence continued with the first defendant’s insurer until April 2002, but nothing further happened until an application to renew the summons was prepared in 2007.
That application was granted by Ms Justice Clark on November 5, 2007 for six months. However, the first defendant had not received notice because the motion had been posted to an incorrect address. It later applied to have the renewal set aside.
The plaintiff’s solicitor explained that the summons had been lost in the office and that service had been overlooked because of pressure of work. Mr Justice Michael Peart held that this did not amount to the “other good reason” required under the Rules of the Superior Courts, particularly after such a lengthy delay.
The judge also found substantial practical prejudice to the defence. A medical examination arranged in October 2001 never took place because the plaintiff’s solicitor failed to notify his client, while the passage of almost nine years from the accident meant witness memories would inevitably be affected. The second defendant, which had employed Mr O’Keeffe, had also been dissolved, potentially preventing the first defendant from pursuing contribution or indemnity against it.
Mr Justice Peart accepted that Mr O’Keeffe himself appeared blameless and would be prejudiced if his claim ended. However, he found that the prejudice to the defendant was greater and that a fair hearing could no longer realistically be achieved. The November 2007 renewal order was therefore set aside.