The Court of Appeal has allowed Shauna Reilly’s appeal against the striking out of her personal injuries claim against ISS Ireland Limited, trading as ISS Facility Services. It set aside the High Court order, allowing the claim against the cleaning contractor to proceed. The appeal court did not decide whether the contractor was liable for her injuries.
Reilly was 22 and employed by Campbell Catering Limited at a coffee shop in Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin, when she fell on a stairwell on 11 June 2015. Her personal injuries summons, issued in November 2017, alleged soft tissue back injuries and said they had the potential to affect her earnings or future job opportunities.
She initially sued her employer, the hospital and Momentum Property Support Services Limited, believing Momentum was the cleaning contractor. Momentum said in February 2018 that it had not provided cleaning services at the location, but did not identify the contractor. It sought discontinuance of the claim against it. In January 2019, Momentum’s solicitors identified ISS as the contractor. Reilly applied to PIAB to add ISS and, after authorisation and a High Court order, served an amended summons in April 2019.
ISS then sought to have the claim struck out for delay, arguing it had been notified of the accident about three and a half years after it happened and would struggle to obtain records and defend the case. The High Court granted the application in November 2019, finding inordinate and inexcusable delay and that the balance of justice favoured striking out the claim.
The Court of Appeal held that neither period it examined—from Momentum’s initial denial to its identification of ISS, and from that identification to service of the amended summons—was inordinate or inexcusable in the circumstances. It noted that Reilly’s solicitor had earlier asked the National Treasury Management Agency about other potentially liable parties and received no response. The court also considered Momentum’s earlier letters to be bare denials that did not identify the correct contractor; once that information was supplied, Reilly’s solicitors acted with reasonable expedition.
The appeal court found that the High Court had given improper weight to the accident-reporting provision in section 8 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. The judgment said the evidence showed Reilly reported the accident to her supervisor and workplace managers, and any argument about section 8 could be made at trial.
It also found ISS’s claims of prejudice were not supported by evidence showing what investigations it had carried out or what steps it took to locate records. The court concluded that the asserted difficulties were largely hypothetical and could be addressed through discovery. It allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order. The court indicated that costs would normally follow the event in Reilly’s favour, subject to either party applying within 14 days for a different order.