The High Court has refused an application by Kathleen Roland to set aside third-party proceedings in a personal-injury case brought by a minor, finding that the defendant’s notice was served as soon as reasonably possible and that Roland’s application came too late.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Mark Heslin on 21 December 2021, concerns an alleged incident at a private dwelling house on 16 May 2015. The plaintiff’s summons alleges that hot oil from a deep-fat fryer came into contact with her when she climbed on a chair to look at turtles, causing burns. Those are allegations in the underlying claim; the court did not determine liability or the plaintiff’s injuries in this application.
The defendant sought to join Roland as a third party, alleging she had switched on the fryer and left it unattended. The court traced efforts by the defendant’s solicitors to establish whether Roland’s insurer, Zurich, would provide cover and take over the claim. After receiving no clear answer, the defendant sought permission to issue a third-party notice. An order granting permission was made on 16 July 2018, and the notice was served on Roland on 19 July.
Roland’s application to set aside the third-party proceedings was issued on 16 November 2020, more than two years after service. Her counsel argued that the defendant had delayed unreasonably in seeking to join her, and that Roland had acted as soon as reasonably possible because she was awaiting Zurich’s decision and later legal aid. The court also considered her access to legal advice from solicitors who corresponded for her from August 2018 and formally came on record in November 2019. They had repeatedly sought more time for her to respond to the proceedings but had not raised a delay challenge.
Justice Heslin held that the defendant’s wait for the insurer’s position was justified in the circumstances and that it had not waited indefinitely before applying to join Roland. He found that Roland had not shown her own application was brought as soon as reasonably possible. The court therefore refused to set aside the third-party proceedings. It made no finding on who was liable for the alleged accident.
The judgment directed the parties to correspond promptly about the form of the final order. The judge’s preliminary view was that costs should follow the event, subject to any further submissions if the parties disagreed. The source does not record a final costs order.