The High Court has ruled that a notice requiring a woman to attend court over unpaid fines was not properly served because it was sent to an address where she did not ordinarily reside. The court said the service questions referred by the District Court were not moot, despite her later attendance after a bench warrant was executed.
In a decision delivered on 13 March 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger considered a consultative case stated by District Judge Patricia Harney under section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. The High Court was asked whether service by ordinary post could be deemed effective when the notice was sent to an address other than the fined person’s ordinary residence, and whether this particular notice had been properly served.
The facts stated by the District Judge were that the woman had been convicted of Road Traffic Acts offences and fined. The summonses listed an address in Kinnegad, Co Westmeath, but were personally served in Sligo in November 2016. At a hearing in January 2017, her solicitor told the District Court that her correct address and residence was in Coolaney, Co Sligo.
A later notice under the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 required her to attend court and provide a written statement of her financial circumstances. A service declaration said it had been sent by ordinary post to the Kinnegad address and described that as her ordinary residence. She did not attend on the date stated in the notice, which she did not receive. A bench warrant was issued after a later non-attendance; it was executed in May 2021. She posted bail and attended subsequent adjourned dates.
The Courts Service argued that her appearance before the District Court cured any defect in service and that the judge could provide information she had missed. Justice Bolger rejected that submission. She said later attendance could not restore the earlier opportunity to pay the fine and avoid attending court, or erase the loss of liberty resulting from execution of the warrant.
The judge said service under section 21 had to be made personally, at the address where the person ordinarily resided, or at an address for service. She found the statutory declaration of service incorrect and silent about the grounds for the stated belief that the Kinnegad address was the woman’s ordinary residence. The court said there was no basis to deem her served on that declaration.
Justice Bolger answered “No” to both questions referred. The decision determines the service issues in the case stated; the source does not record a final order resolving the underlying fine enforcement proceedings.