McGeown v Topaz Energy Group Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Max Barrett |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 288 |
| Docket Number | 2016 No. 2671 P |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 03 May 2019 |
AND
[2019] IEHC 288
2016 No. 2671 P
THE HIGH COURT
Third party proceedings – Third party notice – Personal injuries – Third party seeking an order pursuant to O. 16, r. 8(3) RSC setting aside the third party proceedings – Whether the defendant failed to serve the third party notice as soon as is reasonably possible
Facts: A personal injuries claim arose from an alleged injury suffered in the closing of a petrol station safe by the plaintiff, Ms McGeown, a store manager. That the action was brought by the store manager meant that the petrol station employee who would normally advise the head office of the defendant, Topaz Energy Group Ltd, as to personal injury proceedings commenced against the defendant was the person bringing the action, a factor claimed to have presented the defendant with some logistical difficulty. The third party, Guardwell Lock and Safe Company Ltd, sought an order pursuant to O. 16, r. 8(3) RSC setting aside the third party proceedings. It relied on the fact that the defendant (a) did not serve the third-party notice within the time period specified under O. 16, r. 1(3) RSC, and (b) failed to serve the third party notice “as soon as is reasonably possible” within the meaning of s. 27 of the Civil Liability Act 1961.
Held by the High Court (Barrett J) that the key issue presenting in this application was whether the third party notice was served “as soon as is reasonably possible” and that the difficulty that presented for the defendant was that, even taking its case at its height, the third party notice was not so served.
Barrett J held that he would grant an order pursuant to O. 16, r. 8(3) RSC setting aside the third party proceedings.
Order granted.
This is a personal injuries claim arising from an alleged injury suffered in the closing of a petrol station safe by a store manager. That the action is brought by the store manager means that the petrol station employee who would normally advise the defendant's head office as to personal injury proceedings commenced against the defendant was here the person bringing the action, a factor claimed to have presented the defendant with some logistical difficulty.
The third party now seeks an order pursuant to O. 16, r.8(3) RSC setting aside the third party proceedings. It relies on the fact that the defendant (a) did not serve the third-party notice within the time period specified under O. 16, r.1(3) RSC, and (b) failed to serve the third party notice ‘ as soon as is reasonably possible’ within the meaning of s.27 of the Civil Liability Act 1961. The following chronology pertains:
03.03.2014 In or about this date, the third party carries out work on the safe.
03.04.2014 In or about this date the plaintiff alleges that she hurt herself.
24.03.2016 Proceedings issue.
01.04.2016 Proceedings served.
11.04.2016 Appearance entered by defendant.
31.05.2016 Plaintiff swears affidavit of verification of PI summons.
13.09.2016 Combined request for further information and particulars.
23.02.2017 Plaintiff replies to particulars.
27.04.2017 Plaintiff issues motion seeking judgment in default of defence.
24.05.2017 Defence delivered.
Sept 2017 Plaintiff's solicitor receives documents following electronic and paper search by defendant.
20.10.2017 Defendant issues motion to join third party.
12.02.2018 High Court grants liberty to issue and serve third party notice.
06.03.2018 Third party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAuliffe v Greenstar Holdings Ltd ((in Receivership)) t/a Greenstar
...was made by Irish Rail in argument to the fact that a five-month delay yielded a set-aside order in McGeown v. Topaz Energy Ltd & anor [2019] IEHC 288, it stood to reason that such an order would issue where, as here, there has been an (at least) six month delay. This is not how the within ......