Eileen Chambers v Cyril Kenefick

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMs. Justice Finlay Geoghegan
Judgment Date11 November 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] IEHC 402
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[No. 8864 P/2002]
Date11 November 2005

[2005] IEHC 402

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 8864 P/2002]
Chambers v Kenefick

BETWEEN

EILEEN CHAMBERS
PLAINTIFF

and

CYRIL KENEFICK
DEFENDANT

ADOPTION ACT 1991 S5(1)(iii)(II)

ADOPTION ACT 1991 S10

ADOPTION ACT 1952 S13

ADOPTION ACT 1991 S1

ADOPTION ACT 1952 S15

ADOPTION ACT 1952 S42

GLENKERRIN HOMES v DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN CO COUNCIL UNREP CLARKE 26.4.2007 2007 IEHC 298

ABRAHAMSON v INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND 1996 1 IR 403

WILEY v REVENUE COMMISSIONERS 1993 ILRM 482

HOGAN & MORGAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN IRELAND 3ED 1998 869 - 904

GLENCAR EXPLORATION PLC & ANDAMAN RESOURCES PLC v MAYO CO COUNCIL 2002 1 IR 112 2002 1 ILRM 481 2003/24/5479

ADOPTION ACT 1991 S6

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Summons

Renewal - Failure to serve summons while it was in force - Order for renewal made by the High Court - Application to set aside renewal - Whether plaintiff advanced good reason to renew summons - Balance of justice - Prejudice - Baulk v Irish National Insurance Co Ltd [1969] IR 66, McCooey v Minister for Finance [1971] IR 159, O'Brien v Fahy (Unrep, SC, 21/3/1997) and Roche v Clayton [1998] 1 IR 596 considered; Behan v Bank of Ireland (Unrep, Morris J,14/12/995) not followed - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 8, r 2 - Renewal of summons affirmed (2002/8864P - Finlay Geoghegan J - 11/11/2005) [2005] IEHC 402Chambers v Kenefick

1

Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegandelivered the 11th day of November, 2005

2

This is an application brought on behalf of the defendant to set aside an order made by the High Court (Kearns, J.) on 15 December 2003 renewing a summons which had been issued on 25 June 2002. The application made to Kearns, j, was based upon an affidavit of the plaintiff's solicitor Mr. Denis McMahon from which it appears that the summons was issued on 25 June 2002. It is a plenary summons with a claim for personal injuries, loss and damage alleged to have been suffered by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant. A copy of the summons was sent to the Medical Protection Society, who are the defendant's insurers, on 2 September 2002, who were requested to nominate solicitors to accept service, or in the alternative it was indicated that the summons would be served directly on the defendant.

3

On 12 December 2002 the defendant's now solicitors, Matheson Ormsby Prentice wrote indicating that they had authority to accept service. Thereafter there was correspondence between the two solicitors, principally in relation to the production of medical records, and Mr. McMahon stated that by reason of inadvertence and oversight on his part the plenary summons was not served on the defendant's solicitors within the time limited by the Superior Court Rules. He asserted in his affidavit that there was no element of surprise or prejudice to the defendant and sought to explain his inadvertence and oversight in relation to being focussed on seeking to obtain relevant medical records

4

On 5 March 2004 the original summons and the order made was served on the defendant's solicitors. On 8 April 2004 the defendant's solicitor entered a conditional appearance. On 6 January 2005 the statement of claim was delivered by the plaintiff's solicitor, and on 27 January 2005 a motion was issued on behalf of the defendant seeking to set aside the order of Kearns, J.

5

The first issue which I have to address is, what is the onus on a defendant who seeks to set aside an order for renewal of a summons made ex parte. The application is brought under Order 8 rule 2, which simply provides, "In any case where a summons has been renewed on an ex parte application, any defendant shall be at liberty before entering an appearance to serve notice of motion to set aside such order". Mr. Tynan SC on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the onus on the defendant is exclusively as set out by Morris, J. (as he then was) in the case of James Behan and The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, (Unreported, The High Court, 14 December 1995). In that judgment Morris, J. stated at p. 3

6

"In my view in moving an application of this nature the Defendants takes upon itself the onus of satisfying the Court that there are facts or circumstances in the case which, if the Court which made the Order in the first instance, ex parte, had been aware it would not have made the Order. It is clear, in my view beyond dispute, that this application is not to be dealt with on the basis that it is an appeal from the original Order and accordingly it is incumbent upon the moving party to demonstrate that facts exist which significantly alter the nature of the Plaintiff's application to the extent of satisfying the Court that, had these facts been known at the original hearing, the Order would not have been made."

7

The further submission was made by Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff that there are no facts on this application put before the Court which significantly alter the nature of the plaintiff's application as made to Kearns, J. on 15 December 2003.

8

I accept that latter submission and therefore it is necessary for me to consider whether the approach of Morris, J. sets out in full the proper approach of the High Court on hearing an application under O. 8, r. 2. With respect to Morris, J. it appears to me that it does not set out the full circumstances in which the Court may consider an application under O., 8 r. 2. It appears to me that in addition to the approach set out by Morris, J. it is open to a defendant, by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Doyle v Gibney and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 January 2011
    ...(LEINSTER BRANCH) LIMITED DEFENDANTS RSC O.8 R1 RSC O.8 R2 BEHAN v BANK OF IRELAND UNREP MORRIS 14.12.1995 1996/1/105 CHAMBERS v KENEFICK 2007 3 IR 526 BINGHAM v CROWLEY UNREP FEENEY 17.12.2008 2008/3/562 2008 IEHC 453 O'KEEFFE v G & T CRAMPTON LTD UNREP PEART 17.7.2009 2009/45/11311 2009 ......
  • McDonagh v McCann
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 16 January 2018
    ...Byrne [2016] IECA 10. 15 The exercise to be engaged by the court was described recently by Finlay Geoghegan J. in Chambers v. Kenefick [2005] IEHC 402, [2007] 3 I.R. 526:- 'Firstly, the court should consider is there a good reason to renew the summons. That good reason need not be referabl......
  • Murphy v Mulcahy & Health Service Executive (HSE)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 June 2015
    ...Part III Case-law cited 19 5. Overview. Counsel have between them referred in some detail to a trio of cases, viz. Chambers v. Kenefick [2007] 3 I.R. 526, Bingham v. Crowley and Others [2008] IEHC 453, and Moloney v. Lacey Building and Civil Engineering Limited [2010] 4 I.R. 417. Passing re......
  • Zona Gastronomica SLU and Others v Carbon Finance Ltd and Others
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 19 February 2015
    ...and the onus that is upon the moving party, was the subject of consideration by Finlay Geoghegan J. in Chambers v. Kenefick [2007] 3 I.R. 526, albeit in that case that the application was one brought under Order 8 (2) RSC to set aside an ex parte application renewing a plenary summons. This......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT