The High Court has dismissed Billings Design Associates Limited’s application to set aside the renewal of a plenary summons against it, finding that reasonable efforts had been made to serve the company. The court left costs unresolved, allowing the parties 14 days to make short submissions.
The proceedings, issued in July 2018, involve about 200 plaintiffs and 22 named defendants. They concern alleged building defects said to have caused water ingress and damage to apartments, units and common areas at The Cubes development in Beacon South Quarter, Sandyford, Dublin 18. The judgment notes that seven other sets of proceedings also concern the development.
Billings, the fourth named defendant, asked the court to set aside a July 2019 order renewing the summons for three months, either entirely or insofar as it applied to the claim against the company. That renewal had been granted on an ex parte application made to address service difficulties involving two defendants apparently living in England. The stated reason was the complexity and delay involved in serving defendants outside the jurisdiction. The court found that the renewal order applied to all defendants, including Billings.
The plaintiffs’ solicitors had sent Billings’ solicitors a copy of the concurrent summons in June 2019 and sought confirmation that they could accept service. Billings’ solicitors confirmed that authority on 28 June and asked that service be held off while they obtained instructions. The plaintiffs’ legal services provider was then instructed to arrange service on 1 July, but an oversight meant it did not attend the solicitors’ offices. The omission was discovered in August. The plaintiffs’ solicitors had mistakenly believed Billings had been served when the renewal application was made.
Under the applicable court rule, the judge considered afresh whether the summons should have been renewed. He found that a copy had been provided within the 12-month period, that Billings’ solicitors had requested a pause in formal service, and that the plaintiffs’ solicitors had taken reasonable steps to arrange service. The service provider’s oversight did not, by itself, mean reasonable efforts had not been made.
Billings submitted that it had suffered prejudice, citing the death in June 2012 of Sean Billings, whom it said had primary responsibility for involvement in the construction. The judge did not accept that this established prejudice, noting that the death preceded other proceedings concerning properties by about four years and that no application to dismiss those proceedings on fair-trial grounds appeared to have been made.
The application was dismissed. The judgment did not decide the underlying building-defect claims or determine costs.