The Court of Appeal has allowed Lisa Lawless’s appeal against a High Court refusal to renew her personal injury summons against three medical professionals, ordering that the summons be renewed for six months.
The appeal concerned service of proceedings alleging negligence in Ms Lawless’s treatment and care. The court stressed that the allegations had not been determined. The High Court’s refusal had not prevented her from continuing her claims against Beacon Hospital and Beacon Hospital Sandyford Limited, which had entered appearances without raising an issue about service.
The summons was issued on 2 December 2015 on a protective basis, before supporting expert opinion had been obtained. The judgment says the solicitor sought reports from specialists; two reports supported the claim and one advised obtaining a further report from another colorectal surgeon. That report, sought in the United Kingdom, arrived in July 2017 after delays despite reminder letters.
The summons was served on all defendants on 4 May 2017, about six months after the initial 12-month service period. The three professional defendants entered appearances and sought further particulars. The solicitor later applied to renew the summons. The High Court refused the application, finding no good reason for the delay, including the period between an amended summons being drafted in October 2016 and service in May 2017.
The Court of Appeal held that the rule’s “other good reason” test asks whether there is a reason to renew the summons, not only why service was delayed. It said a solicitor acting responsibly and in good faith may have good reason to wait for further expert advice before serving professional defendants, provided the delay is not unreasonable. On the circumstances before it, the court accepted the solicitor had acted responsibly in seeking the additional report and that the delay did not make renewal unjustified.
The court also weighed the consequences for both sides. Refusal would end Ms Lawless’s claims against the three respondents, while the respondents identified the loss of a potential limitation defence as prejudice. The court said they had already taken steps to address the defence, including requesting further particulars, and found the balance of justice favoured renewal.
Separately, the Court of Appeal said the respondents’ unconditional appearances had cured any defect arising from service after the 12-month period without a prior renewal order. It said a defendant seeking to challenge service should apply to set it aside before entering an appearance. Accordingly, the court added, no renewal application was necessary on these facts; the dispute had added costs and used court time unnecessarily. The appeal was nevertheless allowed on its merits, and the six-month renewal ordered.