The High Court has ruled that a personal-injury summons was sufficiently served on Leonard Ryan, but set aside service on his father, Desmond Ryan, and dismissed the proceedings against the father because the limitation period had expired.
Mr Justice Herbert delivered the judgment on 20 December 2004, following competing motions about service of the summons. The Ryans sought to have service set aside; Damien Heffernan cross-applied for the service actually carried out to be declared sufficient. The court was deciding service issues, not the underlying claim for damages.
Heffernan’s claim arose from a road traffic collision on 11 or 12 July 1998. He alleged that he suffered personal injuries, loss and damage as a passenger in a car owned by Desmond Ryan and driven by Leonard Ryan. The summons was issued on 4 July 2001. A summons server delivered copies to the Ryans’ daughter, Lesley Ryan, at Desmond Ryan’s home on 2 July 2002, after an earlier visit the previous day.
The judge found that on 1 July Leonard Ryan had told his sister to relay that he would not go to court and that the server could serve him “if you can find me”. The judge accepted the server’s account over Leonard Ryan’s recollection of the call, and found that Leonard knew a summons was being sought against him and had deliberately evaded being fixed with knowledge of the proceedings. Although Leonard Ryan said he did not live at his father’s house, the judge held that the circumstances justified using the court’s power to deem the service sufficient. He found the attempt to serve him personally and the subsequent delivery to his adult sister met the applicable requirements in the special circumstances of the case.
The position was different for Desmond Ryan, who was in Canada when the documents were delivered. The judge held that alternative service under the relevant rule required the defendant to be physically present in the jurisdiction at the time. A family member’s presence could not stand in for that physical presence, and the court found no just grounds to deem service on Desmond sufficient. It therefore set aside service on him and dismissed the proceedings against him, the limitation period having expired.
The court also declined to reject the Ryans’ application because it was brought about a year and seven months after service. Their solicitors had raised the service objection within weeks, and the judge noted that no judgment had been entered against them before the motion.