The High Court has ordered the renewal of a personal injuries summons brought by Caroline O’Brien against Wicklow County Council, finding special circumstances justified the extension after the summons was not served within 12 months.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 15 December 2023. The order concerns renewal of the summons under Order 8, rule 1(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts. It does not determine the underlying personal injuries claim.
The judgment says the claim relates to an incident on 31 December 2019. O’Brien’s solicitor, Ms Costello, said she was initially instructed about the workplace death of O’Brien’s husband, but not to commence personal injuries proceedings. The solicitor’s account described subsequent investigations, including a Health and Safety Authority investigation that concluded with a decision not to prosecute, and a coroner’s inquest on 26 November 2021. The judgment does not recount the personal circumstances behind the claim.
A personal injuries summons issued on 8 August 2022. Ms Costello said it was not served within the 12-month period because of an administrative error while she was on vacation. The omission was identified and an application for renewal was prepared. The judgment records some inconsistencies in the chronology of instructions, including dates in 2022 and 2023, but does not resolve them.
In support of the application, Ms Costello submitted that the delay was limited, the Council had been aware of the potential claim, and renewal would not cause significant prejudice. She also argued that refusal could leave O’Brien and the deceased’s six statutory dependants with claims that were statute-barred. These were submissions supporting the application, not findings on the underlying claim.
Justice Barrett accepted that the inadvertent omission, the potential severe prejudice to the widow and dependants if renewal were refused, and the relatively short period before the application was brought amounted to special circumstances. He acknowledged that renewal would cause some prejudice to the Council, which would face an action that otherwise would have been statute-barred. He concluded that the greater injustice would arise from refusing renewal.
The court therefore ordered renewal of the summons. The judgment addresses only that procedural application; it makes no finding on liability or the merits of the personal injuries claim.