The High Court has set aside an order renewing a summons brought by Altan Management (Galway) Limited against Taylor Architects Limited over alleged problems at the Altan apartment development in Galway. The ruling concerned only whether the summons could be renewed; it did not decide the underlying allegations or liability.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin heard the architects’ application under Order 8, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. That rule allowed the first named defendant to seek a fresh, inter partes consideration of an earlier renewal granted without hearing it. The earlier order, made on 24 June 2019, had renewed the summons for three months on two stated grounds: that an expert report did not exist and that the defendants had been on notice of the issues.
The judge found that the evidence did not support either ground. A fire safety audit report prepared for the plaintiff by engineer Fergal Bradley’s firm existed in 2016. The plaintiff’s 2019 renewal application had presented that report as having been received in February 2019. A further report dated 15 July 2019 followed the same structure and addressed the same issues, but was produced after the renewal order.
The court also found that the architects had not been given adequate notice of the claim’s specific basis. Letters sent in 2015 to an individual associated with the firm asked for documents but did not set out a claim. A 2016 letter to the firm referred to proceedings but did not include the summons or explain the alleged duty, breach or loss. The judge noted that the firm sought the 2016 report but did not receive it.
The plaintiff submitted that it was still seeking information and did not have a final report when it applied to renew. It also argued that the claim could be detailed later. The first defendant relied on the delay, lack of notice and claimed difficulty defending proceedings about a development completed in 2004. The court found moderate prejudice and described the delay between expiry of the initial service period and the renewal application as extreme and without a credible explanation.
Justice Heslin concluded that no special circumstances justified renewal and that it was not in the interests of justice to let the renewal stand. He therefore set aside the renewal order. The judgment did not determine the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. The parties were directed to discuss the appropriate formal order, including costs; if they could not agree, short written submissions were to be filed within 14 days.