The High Court has extended time for an unserved 2001 summons and renewed it for six months in a personal injuries claim against the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland arising from an alleged 1999 motorcycle accident near Griffin’s Cross, Limerick.
Mr Justice Herbert delivered judgment on 10 August 2012. The application concerned plenary summons 2001 No. 12398 P, issued on 2 August 2001 but never served. The court’s order allows that summons to remain available for service for six months from the renewal date. It does not decide whether the alleged accident occurred as claimed or whether the Bureau is liable. The Bureau may still defend the claim on its merits.
The plaintiff said he was riding a Suzuki motorcycle when a vehicle struck it from behind and drove him into a field. His solicitors notified the Bureau in 2000 of a “hit and run” claim. In 2001, they issued the summons against the Bureau but did not serve it. A second action, issued in 2002 against the Bureau and three named men, pursued a claim that one of them owned or drove the vehicle. At the renewal hearing, the plaintiff accepted that the untraced motorist claim could not proceed in that second action, and that he no longer pursued two of the named men there.
The Bureau opposed renewal, arguing that the plaintiff had not shown good reason and that the delay of more than 13 years would cause hardship. It said renewal would deprive it of a limitation defence and prejudice its ability to investigate. The judge accepted that no effort had been made to serve the 2001 summons within its first year, but found other good reason to renew it. The Bureau had known from 2000 that a claim was intended and knew the summons had issued. The judge also found that no actual or specific prejudice had been established.
The court considered evidence that Gardaí had attended the scene but that the file could not be found. A detective’s 2010 letter recorded that nobody at the scene had witnessed the accident and gave his recollection that the motorcyclist appeared to have left the road without colliding with another vehicle. The judge said the Bureau had not identified a material witness who was unavailable or shown that the motorcycle could not be inspected or the scene had materially changed. He considered that any investigative difficulty was principally linked to the Bureau’s decision to engage engineering and motorcycle experts only after a statement of claim was delivered in 2011.
Balancing the parties’ positions, the judge concluded that refusal would prevent the plaintiff from having the untraced motorist claim determined on its merits, while renewal would leave the Bureau able to defend it. He therefore extended time for the application and renewed the summons for six months.