The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General. The defendants had asked the court to set aside a judgment in default of defence in a claim brought by a scaffolding contractor. The dismissal left the default judgment in place; the Supreme Court did not decide the underlying allegations at trial.
The plaintiff alleges that five gardaí came to his workplace in Castlebar on 8 April 2003, that an officer put a gun to his head and that he was arrested and detained. He also alleges a separate incident of garda harassment in March 2004. He is seeking damages for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and slander. The defendants deny that he was wrongfully or recklessly arrested or subjected to force, and deny that a gun was put to his head.
The proceedings began in 2005. After the defendants failed to deliver a defence, the High Court made an order in March 2007 providing for judgment in default unless a defence was filed by the specified deadline. The defence was not filed, and the judgment took effect. The defendants later applied to set it aside. The High Court refused that application in February 2009, citing the lengthy, unexplained delay.
On appeal, the defendants relied on a misunderstanding over whether an earlier motion for judgment would be struck out by agreement or adjourned. Their solicitor accepted responsibility for a delay of about 21 months before the application to set aside was issued, attributing it to work pressure and oversight. The defendants also argued that they had a defence and would suffer prejudice if prevented from contesting liability. The plaintiff opposed the appeal, relying on the delay and the need for cases to be heard within a reasonable time.
The Supreme Court said the misunderstanding was a special circumstance that could have supported an application made promptly after the judgment came to the defendants’ attention. But it held that the circumstance could not justify the 21-month wait. It also found that the affidavit did not give sufficient detail of the proposed defence beyond denials of the allegations. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the judgment after no challenge was brought within a reasonable time, and dismissed the appeal.