The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by Maurice Colgan and Niamh Nic Mhathuna and refused the Irish Family Planning Association’s application for more time to serve a statement of claim against them.
The appeal concerned a High Court order extending the time for service by one week. The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered by Denham J. on 4 February 2004, did not decide the underlying trespass claim. It addressed whether the extension should have been granted on the material before the court.
The association had obtained an interim injunction against the defendants, among others, in March 1999, followed by an interlocutory injunction. That injunction was later discharged as against Colgan. The judgment records that Nic Mhathuna gave an undertaking. The association then sought an extension of time under the Rules of the Superior Courts. The Deputy Master refused the application on 3 May 2001, but the High Court set that decision aside on 25 June 2001 and extended time.
In the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the applicant had to explain the delay and provide material justifying an extension. The association maintained that the High Court had applied the correct test. The Supreme Court did not decide those broader arguments.
Instead, Denham J. focused on the draft statement of claim. It described Youth Defence as an unincorporated body and Colgan and Nic Mhathuna as members. It alleged that a group of about twelve members had unlawfully entered and occupied a clinic on 6 March 1999, but did not allege that either appellant was in the group or identify other wrongdoing by them. The association’s counsel accepted that the draft contained no allegations against the two defendants.
The court held that membership of Youth Defence alone did not establish a cause of action against either appellant. The possibility that the statement of claim might later be amended did not cure the problem with the document placed before the court. Denham J. said an applicant seeking more time should provide an appropriate draft statement of claim, and the court should not extend time to serve a document that disclosed no cause of action on its face.
The court therefore allowed the appeal and refused the extension application. It did not determine the trespass claim or the separate legal arguments about delay, which it said did not arise for decision.