The High Court has refused an application by Swords Barbers Limited and Tadas Steckys to set aside an order renewing a personal injuries summons brought by Jolanta Rajauskiene. The court found the defendants had not established sufficiently specific prejudice to outweigh the consequences for the plaintiff if her proceedings could not continue.
The plaintiff alleges she was injured at her then workplace on or about 5 March 2017 while trying to close a door, when her finger became trapped. The judgment concerns only the defendants’ application to set aside the renewal of her summons. It does not decide the underlying injury claim or liability.
The summons issued on 9 July 2019. Attempts to serve both defendants by registered post in July 2019 were unsuccessful. The company’s registered address had changed in January 2019, and the court noted that it had been sent to an incorrect address. The plaintiff’s solicitor later arranged personal service attempts, which also failed. The solicitor acknowledged inadvertence and said COVID-19 restrictions and disruption in her office contributed to further delay.
On 28 July 2021, Barr J. renewed the summons for three months. The defendants applied to set that order aside. They argued that delay had made it harder to locate and interview potential witnesses and assess the premises, which they no longer occupied. They also pointed to a lengthy gap in communications from the plaintiff’s solicitors. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had been aware of the claim since 2018 through their insurer, had shown no specific prejudice, and that refusal of renewal would leave her proceedings statute barred.
Justice Bolger weighed the prejudice to both sides. She accepted there could be prejudice to the defendants from having to defend a claim years after the alleged accident. But she said the asserted difficulties locating witnesses and assessing the premises were not supported with specific details, despite the insurer having investigated the claim from 2018 until it closed its file in April 2020.
The judge concluded that the defendants’ potential prejudice did not outweigh the prejudice to the plaintiff if the summons were not renewed. She therefore refused the application to set aside Barr J.’s renewal order.
On costs, the judge gave an indicative view that the plaintiff should receive the costs of the motion, subject to adjudication if the parties could not agree, with a stay pending resolution of the overall proceedings. She invited any submissions on costs or other final orders when the matter returned to court on 12 July 2023.