The High Court has set aside service of proceedings brought by chartered accountant Peter McDonnell against the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), after finding that the documents served did not comply with an earlier court order.
Mr Justice Nolan ruled that the plaintiff had served the plenary summons itself, rather than the notice of the summons specified in the order granting permission to serve the proceedings in England. The court directed that an application to renew the summons be listed before him on 28 April. The judgment does not determine the underlying claims.
Mr McDonnell claims damages for defamation, including aggravated and punitive damages, and declarations concerning alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation. He alleges that, during disciplinary proceedings that were ultimately disposed of in his favour, ACCA communicated with Ireland’s Companies Registration Office in a way that left him unable to file accounts because his account was blocked. These are allegations, not findings in this ruling.
ACCA has registered offices in London. After the plaintiff issued a plenary summons in February 2023, Justice Heslin made an order permitting service in England and specifying that notice of the summons be served at ACCA’s registered offices. The plaintiff’s solicitor later sent the summons and the order by registered post, but not the required notice. The solicitor accepted in an affidavit that this was an oversight.
ACCA applied under Order 12, Rule 26 of the Rules of the Superior Courts to set aside service. It argued that the prescribed form of notice was important where proceedings were being served outside Ireland. The plaintiff submitted that the error should not undo service: ACCA knew proceedings were contemplated, and setting service aside could prejudice his claim. He also relied on later cases in which courts had overlooked defects in service.
Justice Nolan said the rule on service had a mandatory tone and the order itself specified how service was to be carried out. He distinguished the cases relied on by the plaintiff and said that, although he might have taken a different view if only the rules had been breached, he could not ignore breach of the court order. He acknowledged that the breach was technical, but noted that ACCA had made clear it would challenge jurisdiction and had declined to appoint Irish solicitors to accept service.
The court therefore set aside service. It did not dismiss the claim or decide whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction to hear it. The plaintiff must apply to renew the summons so it can be served in accordance with the rules. Justice Nolan directed that the renewal application be listed before him on 28 April, without specifying a year in the judgment.