The High Court has given a plaintiff one week to deliver a statement of claim in a personal injury action, after extending time to appeal an order that had dismissed the case for want of prosecution.
Mr Justice Herbert made the orders on 6 March 2007. The Master of the High Court had dismissed the action on 23 June 2006, when no one appeared for the plaintiff. The judgment does not decide whether the defendant was responsible for the alleged injury.
The plaintiff claimed that on 4 May 2001 he was walking through the defendant’s premises during his employment when a metal fluorescent light shield fell and struck him in the face. He said he received treatment from the company nurse and at Limerick Regional Hospital, where the cut to his chin was sutured, and was left with a scar.
A plenary summons was issued in December 2003 and served in September 2004. The plaintiff did not deliver a statement of claim. His solicitor said a medical report was needed before counsel could complete it. The defendant’s solicitor argued that the claim could have been pleaded without waiting for that report and that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable.
The defendant also said independent electrical contractors working in the corridor, or the suppliers or manufacturers of the light fittings, might have been responsible. It argued that delay could prejudice a later contribution claim against those potential third parties. The judge considered that risk a remote possibility and found the defendant had not established prejudice to its defence or sufficiently shown that a contribution claim would be unjustly impaired.
The plaintiff’s solicitor said the dismissal motion was missed because it was not entered in the office diary while the firm was preparing for a Law Society accounts inspection and the secretary was leaving on maternity leave. The judge accepted that the failure to appear and appeal in time resulted from a mistake, and that the plaintiff had an arguable ground of appeal. He nevertheless described the four-month delay in seeking to set aside the dismissal as unexplained and almost incomprehensible.
The judge called the case “very borderline” and extended time only with considerable hesitation, citing special circumstances and the evolving approach to procedural delay. He ordered that the statement of claim be delivered within one week of the judgment. The court did not set out a final decision on the appeal or determine liability for the alleged accident. It reserved the question of costs for a further hearing.