The Court of Appeal has set aside High Court orders renewing four summonses against a Swedish company and a Swiss company, ruling that the plaintiff had not shown special circumstances capable of justifying renewal. It dismissed his appeal concerning a separate summons against the Swiss company.
The appeals arose from proceedings brought by Michael Power, a chartered accountant who lives in Waterford. He sued over alleged personal injuries and alleged detriment arising from protected disclosures, naming three corporate defendants. The appeals concerned only the second and third defendants: a Swedish company and a Swiss company. The underlying allegations were not determined in these appeals.
The summonses had not been validly served on those companies within the required 12 months. The High Court renewed both summonses against the Swedish company and the plenary summons against the Swiss company, but refused to renew the personal injuries summons against the Swiss company. The companies appealed the renewals granted to them; Power appealed the refusal concerning the personal injuries summons against the Swiss company.
Delivering judgment on 1 March 2024, Mr Justice Allen said the plaintiff had to establish special circumstances that could justify renewal. The court held that proceedings against the foreign companies required leave to serve outside the jurisdiction, which had not been obtained before the summonses were issued or the attempted service took place.
The judgment described substantial confusion in the plaintiff’s solicitors’ attempts to serve the proceedings, including sending papers for the Swiss company through a route intended for service within the European Union and sending documents directly to the Swiss authority rather than through the Irish central authority. The court said the failure to obtain leave resulted from a failure to read the relevant court rules. Notice of a claim or proceedings, it said, could not replace valid service.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Swedish company’s appeals and ordered the renewals of both summonses against it set aside. It also allowed the Swiss company’s appeal and set aside renewal of the plenary summons against it. The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed, leaving in place the High Court’s refusal to renew the personal injuries summons against the Swiss company.
The court’s decision concerned renewal and service of the summonses; it did not decide the merits of Power’s underlying claims. The judges’ provisional view was that the companies were entitled to appeal costs and High Court costs. The judgment allowed Power ten days to notify the court and the companies’ solicitors if he wished to argue for a different costs order.