The High Court has refused an application by Lisa Lawless to renew an expired personal injuries summons against Beacon Hospital, Beacon Hospital Sandyford Ltd and three named consultants. Mr Justice Binchy dismissed the application on 14 December 2018, finding that the plaintiff had not shown a good reason for failing to serve the summons while it remained in force.
The summons was issued on 2 December 2015. Under the applicable court rule, it remained in force for 12 months, expiring on 1 December 2016. The defendants were first notified of the proceedings when the summons and a proposed amended summons were sent to them on 4 May 2017. The plaintiff applied to renew the summons on 22 February 2018.
The plaintiff alleges that negligent treatment at the hospital caused severe injuries. The judgment recounts her claim that, after surgery in April 2014, a bowel perforation was repaired and she later developed septicaemia and required intensive care. Those allegations were not determined in this application, which concerned only whether the summons should be renewed and amended.
The plaintiff’s solicitor said expert reports were needed before the proceedings could be properly particularised. A gynaecologist’s report, received on 4 July 2016, supported the claim and recommended another specialist opinion. A draft amended summons was available from counsel on 24 October 2016. The court found that the plaintiff had enough evidence by then to serve the proceedings. It said the record did not explain the delay between that date and service in May 2017, during which the summons expired. A further colorectal surgeon’s report was received in July 2017, but the plaintiff had not shown that it provided evidence needed to serve the summons.
The court also rejected the argument that the third to fifth defendants had accepted the court’s jurisdiction by entering appearances and requesting particulars on the amended summons. They had maintained their objection to the expired summons, and their request for particulars did not amount to a waiver. The judge said they were not obliged to apply to set aside service; it was for the plaintiff to take steps to regularise the expired summons.
The court acknowledged that the defendants identified no prejudice beyond losing a possible limitation defence if renewal were granted. But that defence was a statutory entitlement, and the risk that the plaintiff’s claim might become time-barred was not, by itself, a good reason to renew. The application was dismissed. The court did not decide the underlying negligence allegations.