The High Court said an order allowing service of proceedings on a defendant in the Isle of Man should not stand because the plenary summons had ceased to be in force. The court did not decide the wider dispute about whether Ireland was the proper forum, and said the plaintiff could still apply to renew the summons.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey delivered the judgment on 14 May 2020. The defendant, a Canadian citizen resident in the Isle of Man, had applied to set aside service and discharge a July 2018 order permitting service outside Ireland. In the alternative, he sought a stay on forum non conveniens grounds.
The plaintiff’s proceedings, issued in May 2014, seek €965,000 and other relief, including orders concerning funds allegedly held by the defendant and property in County Roscommon. These are claims in the proceedings, not findings in this judgment.
An earlier order permitting service was set aside in 2018 after another judge found the court had not been given sufficient relevant information, describing the problem as essentially a lack of candour. The plaintiff then made a fresh application, and Mr Justice Eagar permitted service at the defendant’s Isle of Man residence on 2 July 2018. The plaintiff did not apply to renew the summons after the earlier service order was discharged.
The defendant argued that the summons was no longer in force when the fresh service order was made. The plaintiff argued that the defect could be treated as an irregularity under the court rules, pointing to its intention to make a fresh service application and the defendant’s delay in raising the point.
Mr Justice Sanfey concluded that the summons had ceased to be in force and that the service order should not have been made. He rejected the use of the procedural rule on irregularities to bypass the requirement for an application to renew the summons. The defendant’s application to set aside service was well founded.
The court did not determine the parties’ other arguments about jurisdiction or whether factual disputes required a preliminary hearing. It said the proceedings could not go further unless the plaintiff obtained renewal and valid service. The judge indicated that renewal could be sought on notice to the defendant, but expressed no view on whether such an application would succeed.
The judgment gave the parties an opportunity to consider whether they would consent to defer the costs issue while a renewal application was pursued. If they could not agree, the court said it would make the orders sought to set aside service and discharge the July 2018 order, and invite written submissions on costs by 4 June 2020.