The High Court has set aside the ex parte renewal of a summons in a personal injury case after finding that no efforts had been made to serve it and no good reason was offered for that failure.
Mr Justice Max Barrett made the order on 28 May 2019, granting an application by defendant Niall Moran under Order 8, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The judgment is reported as [2019] IEHC 361.
The court said the proceedings had continued after the summons issued, while no service was effected and the summons’s lifespan was running down. Under Order 8, rule 1, renewal may be allowed where reasonable efforts have been made to serve the summons or there is another good reason. The judge said reasonable efforts could not be established where no efforts had been made, and no good reason for that omission had been offered.
The judge added that even if another good reason for renewal had existed, it would have to outweigh the prejudice to Mr Moran caused by the death of the first-named defendant, Edric Browne, the previous March. Browne’s death had removed Moran’s opportunity to obtain his evidence on issues the judgment described as critical. These included a horse’s temperament and the placement and guarding of an electricity pole that the horse allegedly collided with while the plaintiff was riding it.
The judgment records that the plaintiff’s solicitor relied on an interpretation of an email from Zürich Insurance dated 10 October 2017. The judge rejected that interpretation, saying the insurer appeared to mistakenly believe it was being sued, expected a summons naming it to issue, and expected to authorise solicitors to accept service on its behalf.
The court granted the order sought by Moran, setting aside the ex parte renewal. The judgment does not determine the underlying allegation about the horse and pole; it addresses the renewal of the summons.