Eileen Chambers v Cyril Kenefick
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | High Court |
Judge | Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan |
Judgment Date | 11 November 2005 |
Neutral Citation | [2005] IEHC 402 |
Docket Number | [No. 8864 P/2002] |
Date | 11 November 2005 |
[2005] IEHC 402
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
and
ADOPTION ACT 1991 S5(1)(iii)(II)
ADOPTION ACT 1991 S10
ADOPTION ACT 1991 S1
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
Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegandelivered the 11th day of November, 2005
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.
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
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.
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
"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."
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.
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-
Doyle v Gibney and Others
...(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
...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)
...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......
-
Desmond Monahan v Kevin Byrne and Another
...that new evidence does not need to be produced on an Order 8 r.2 application. See Finlay Geoghegan J. page 529 in Chambers v. Kenefick [2007] 3 I.R. 526 adopted by Feeney J. in Bingham v. Crowley [2008] IEHC 453 page 10 and Peart J. in Moynihan v. Dairygold Cooperative Society Ltd [2006] IE......