Judgment: 2011-03-14 · Court archive

High Court refuses to renew personal injury summons after solicitor’s service failure

The judge found the plaintiff personally blameless for the delay but said there was no good reason under the court rules to renew the summons.

The High Court · [2011] IEHC 156

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • The Minister for Finance (Defendant)
  • Michael Peart (Judge)
What

The judge found the plaintiff personally blameless for the delay but said there was no good reason under the court rules to renew the summons.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court refused an application to renew a personal injury summons that had not been served on the Minister for Finance within the required period. The court said the plaintiff’s former solicitor was responsible for the failure, but that this alone did not provide a good reason to renew the summons.

The High Court refused an application to renew a personal injury summons that had not been served on the Minister for Finance within the required period. The court said the plaintiff’s former solicitor was responsible for the failure, but that this alone did not provide a good reason to renew the summons.

The plaintiff, a former member of An Garda Síochána, began proceedings in July 2004 seeking damages for injuries and other loss she said she suffered in May 2003 while travelling as a passenger in a Garda patrol car. The summons was issued within the limitation period but was never served, and no renewal application was made until December 2010.

The plaintiff argued that the State Claims Agency had been notified of her claim early, had arranged a medical examination in 2004 and would not be prejudiced by the delay. She also submitted that liability would not be at issue. The judge recorded that the defendant disputed aspects of the plaintiff’s account of later communications and objected to her reliance on correspondence marked “without prejudice”.

The judge found that the plaintiff had entrusted the claim to her solicitor and was entitled to assume he was protecting her interests. He described her as personally blameless for the failure to serve the summons and the delay in seeking renewal. However, the State Claims Agency had not been told that proceedings were underway until September 2008, and the summons remained unserved after that notice.

Under Order 8 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the plaintiff had to show a good reason for renewal. The judge said her lack of personal responsibility and the loss of her ability to pursue a claim that was by then statute-barred were not, by themselves, sufficient. He also said the defendant’s lack of claimed prejudice was not a relevant consideration unless the plaintiff first established good reason for renewal.

Justice Michael Peart concluded that justice required refusal of the application. The court refused renewal of the plenary summons; it did not determine the underlying personal injury claim or make findings on liability or damages.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review