Judgment: 2014-01-15 · Court archive

High Court refuses to renew personal injury summons after lengthy unexplained delay

The court found no good reason to renew a summons that had gone unserved for years, and refused the plaintiff’s application. It did not determine the underlying injury claim.

High Court · [2014] IEHC 7

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Michael Peart (Judge)
What

The court found no good reason to renew a summons that had gone unserved for years, and refused the plaintiff’s application. It did not determine the underlying injury claim.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 26 August 2002; 21 July 2004

    The plaintiff sought damages over injuries he said he sustained in an accident on 26 August 2002. His solicitor issued a plenary summons on 21 July 2004 but did not serve it within 12 months. A copy was sent to Quinn Direct, the insurer handling the claim, in January 2005; the judge said this did not amount to service on the defendant.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has refused an application to renew a personal injury summons that was issued in 2004 but never served on the defendant. Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled that the plaintiff had not shown a good reason for renewal after a delay of about eight years beyond the time allowed for service.

The High Court has refused an application to renew a personal injury summons that was issued in 2004 but never served on the defendant. Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled that the plaintiff had not shown a good reason for renewal after a delay of about eight years beyond the time allowed for service.

The plaintiff sought damages over injuries he said he sustained in an accident on 26 August 2002. His solicitor issued a plenary summons on 21 July 2004 but did not serve it within 12 months. A copy was sent to Quinn Direct, the insurer handling the claim, in January 2005; the judge said this did not amount to service on the defendant.

The plaintiff said he believed his claim was progressing towards settlement or trial. The insurer had been notified of the claim and arranged medical examinations in 2003 and 2006. He argued that he was personally blameless because he relied on his solicitor, and that refusal to renew would leave his claim statute-barred.

The defendant opposed renewal, citing the age of the accident and the absence of an explanation for the failure to serve. The defendant’s solicitors had written to the plaintiff’s solicitor in November 2005 seeking the pleadings, and again in February 2006 warning that they would oppose an application to renew. No service followed, and the judgment records no further interaction between the solicitors for about seven years.

The judge distinguished the case from *Chambers v Kenefick*, where renewal had been granted after a much shorter delay. Here, the summons remained unserved for years despite the defendant’s solicitors’ requests. There was no evidence explaining why the plaintiff’s former solicitor had not served it, and no affidavit from that solicitor. The judge inferred that the solicitor had negligently overlooked service, but said that, on the evidence before the court, the plaintiff’s remedy lay against the solicitor.

The ruling concerned only whether the summons should be renewed. The court refused the application; it did not decide whether the plaintiff’s injury claim was valid or determine liability or damages.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review