The High Court has refused an application to renew a summons in a disputed €965,000 investment case, finding that the plaintiff had not shown “special circumstances which justify an extension” under the court rules.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey’s judgment, delivered on 15 December 2021, concerned proceedings Joseph Kearns had begun against Eric Evenson in 2014. Kearns alleged that Evenson had received funds to hold as trustee and pay out on his directions. Evenson denied receiving the money or being personally liable, and said documents relied on by Kearns were forged.
The application followed an earlier ruling in May 2020 that set aside service of the proceedings on Evenson in the Isle of Man. The court had found that the summons had expired before an order allowing service outside the jurisdiction was made in July 2018. The present application sought renewal of the summons and, if renewal were granted, permission to serve notice of proceedings in the Isle of Man.
The judge considered the parties’ submissions under the amended court rule, which requires special circumstances to justify renewal. He said the test required the court to weigh the interests of justice, including prejudice and hardship to both sides. Kearns relied on Evenson’s prior knowledge of the claim, the documentary nature of the dispute and the prospect that a fresh claim might be time-barred. He also argued that the delay in seeking renewal was explained by his legal advisers’ failure to realise it was necessary.
The judge found that responsibility for the delay rested with Kearns. The summons had expired more than five years before the renewal application was issued, and almost two years had passed between the July 2018 service order and that application. The judge said Evenson faced moderate but significant prejudice, including the passage of time and a risk that a witness’s health and mobility could further affect his ability to give evidence. He concluded that the plaintiff’s potential difficulty bringing a fresh claim did not outweigh those factors, particularly given earlier opportunities to issue new proceedings.
The court refused renewal. As a result, the requested permission to serve notice of the proceedings in the Isle of Man did not arise. The judgment did not decide whether the Irish courts had jurisdiction or determine the parties’ competing claims about the investments and documents. The judge directed the parties to try to agree the terms of the orders, including costs; if they could not, they could make written submissions within 14 days.