Murphy v A.R.F. Management Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Meenan
• Judgment Date: 22 November 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 802
• Date: 22 November 2019
• Docket Number: [2017/4082 P]
• Court: High Court

BETWEEN

NOEL MURPHY

AND

JEAN CULLEN

PLAINTIFFS

AND

A.R.F. MANAGEMENT LIMITED, HARRY CASSIDY, ELANA CASSIDY, JOHN MULHOLLAND, RUTH M. WOODS

AND

JOHN WHYTE

DEFENDANTS

[2019] IEHC 802

Justice Meenan

[2017/4082 P]

THE HIGH COURT

Renewal of summons – Damages – Fraud – Plaintiffs seeking renewal of summons – Whether it is permissible for a court to renew a summons on more than one occasion

Facts: These proceedings related to an alleged misappropriation by the first defendant, A.R.F. Management Ltd, and/or its former directors in the sum of €3,376,255. The plaintiffs, Mr Murphy and Ms Cullen, sought damages for, inter alia, fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence and breach of duty. The plenary summons was issued on 28 April 2017. On 22 October 2018, the High Court made an order renewing the summons for a period of six months. This application was made under the original Order 8 the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC). On 12 April 2019, the court made an order further renewing the summons for a period of three months to permit the plaintiffs to issue a request for service abroad of the summons, in accordance with the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, on one of the director defendants who resided in the Russian Federation. On 8 July 2018, the court made an order further renewing the summons for a period of three months to allow service to be effected in accordance with the said Convention. The court held that “special circumstances” existed which justified a further renewal, the reasons being “complexities and delays involved in the service of proceedings on some of the defendants residing outside the jurisdiction.” Finally, on 7 October 2019, the court made an order further renewing the summons for a period so as to enable legal submissions to be made in respect of the effects of the revision of Order 8 by S.I. 482 of 2018: Rules of the Superior Courts (Renewal of Summons) 2018. On the issue as to whether the amended Order 8 still allows for multiple renewals, Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that if it was intended that the amended Order 8 would only allow for one renewal this would have been clearly stated.

Held by Meenan J that, having considered the terms of the amendment to Order 8 in order to determine whether it is still permissible for a court to renew a summons on more than one occasion, as was permitted by the original wording of Order 8, on its true construction, the amended Order 8 provides that a court can only renew a summons on one occasion.

Meenan J held that it is no longer permissible for a court, having already renewed a summons, to order a further renewal.

Judgment approved.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Meenan delivered on the 22nd day of November, 2019

Introduction

1 This judgment concerns the provisions of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) that provide for the renewal of a summons. The relevant rule is Order 8, which was amended by S.I. 482 of 2018: Rules of The Superior Courts (Renewal Of Summons) 2018. I will consider the terms of the amendment to Order 8, in order to determine whether it is still permissible for a court to renew a summons on more than one occasion, as was permitted by the original wording of Order 8. The amended rule came into operation on 11 January 2019.

Background

2 These proceedings relate to an alleged misappropriation by the first named defendant and/or its former directors in the sum of €3,376,255. The plaintiffs seek damages for, inter alia, fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence and breach of duty. The plenary summons was issued on 28 April 2017.

3 On 22 October 2018, the court made an Order renewing the summons for a period of six months. This application was made under the original Order 8.

4 On 12 April 2019, the court made an Order further renewing the summons for a period of three months to permit the plaintiffs to issue a request for service abroad of the summons, in accordance with the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, on one of the director defendants who resides in the Russian Federation.

5 On 8 July 2018, the court made an Order further renewing the summons for a period of three months to allow service to be effected in accordance with the said Convention. The court held that “special circumstances” existed which justified a further renewal, the reasons being “complexities and delays involved in the service of proceedings on some of the defendants residing outside the jurisdiction.” However, the issue as to whether, under the amended Order 8, such a renewal was permissible does not appear to have been in issue. Finally, on 7 October 2019, this Court made an Order further renewing the summons for a period so as to enable legal submissions to be made in respect of the effects of the revision of Order 8.

Order 8 R.S.C.

6 The original Order 8(1) provides: -

“1. No original summons shall be in force for more than twelve months from the day of the date thereof … but if any defendant therein named shall not have been served therewith, the plaintiff may apply before the expiration of twelve months to the Master for leave to renew the summons. After the expiration of twelve months, an application to extend time for leave to renew the...