The High Court has refused an application by Mairead Slowey to set aside renewal of a personal injury summons brought by Claire Gallagher over alleged professional negligence in the design and construction of Gallagher’s home. The court’s decision concerned renewal of the summons only; it did not decide whether the negligence allegations are proved.
The proceedings name Slowey, the daughter and executrix of the late architect Gerard Slowey, and Michael Friel, sued as successor to the architectural practice. Gallagher alleges negligence, breach of duty and breach of contract in the professional services provided by Gerard Slowey. No statement of claim had been delivered against Friel, and the judgment says it did not appear that he had been served with the motion papers in this application.
The house was built in 2003 or 2004. Gallagher noticed cracks in about 2014. An architect and surveyor’s January 2017 report provisionally attributed the cracking to “the removal of foundation support”, but said further investigation was needed. A separate report discussed in an April 2017 letter from the home insurer’s loss adjuster said defective construction or design was the most likely cause, while also calling for further investigation.
The summons issued in December 2018. Gallagher’s solicitors made repeated attempts to serve Slowey at a Donegal property, and sought her address or authority to accept service from solicitors acting for her. They were told in June 2019 that those solicitors lacked instructions to accept service and could not provide her address for data-protection reasons. The summons expired in December 2019. In October 2020, a judge extended the time to apply for renewal, renewed the summons for three months and directed service by prepaid post at the Donegal property, with a courtesy copy to solicitors.
Slowey argued that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, had prejudiced her ability to find documents and pursue other professionals, and deprived her of an opportunity to rely on the Statute of Limitations. She also challenged the lack of a definitive expert report. The court noted an unexplained nine-month gap between expiry of the summons and the renewal application, but treated the delay as moderate and took account of disruption to litigation during the pandemic. It found no sufficient evidence of specific prejudice from the period after proceedings began, and said expert reports were not required to be put before the court on this application.
Justice Emily Egan concluded that setting aside renewal would not be in the interests of justice and refused the relief sought. She stressed that the case must now proceed with expedition, adding that further delay could affect any future application to strike out the proceedings.