Northern Telecom (Ireland) Ltd, O'Reilly v
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Laffoy |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1999 |
| Neutral Citation | [1998] IEHC 168 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | No. 1314p/1994,[1994 No. 1314 P] |
| Date | 01 January 1999 |
BETWEEN
AND
[1998] IEHC 168
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis
Practice and Procedure
Plenary summons; renewal; time-limit; application to have order of renewal of summons set aside; application for renewal summons granted ex parte; personal injury action; alleged delay in prosecution of claim; delay in the first notification of a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant; whether defendant would be seriously prdejudiced in defending the claim; whether plaintiff has established any good reason for failure to serve the summons within the prescribed time; whether plaintiff entitled to renew summons; whether delay by defendant in bringing application to have renewal order set aside can avail the plaintiff Held: Relief granted; plaintiff has not established that there was a good reason why the summons was not served within the relevant period prescribed by O 8 r.1 of the Rules of the Superior Court O'Reilly v Northern Telecom (Ireland) Ltd - High Court: Laffoy J - 27/11/1998 - [1999] 1 IR 214 - [1999] 1 ILRM 371
The plaintiff had not established any good reason for his failure to serve the plenary summons within the one year prescribed in order 8, rule 1 of the Rules. His explanation that he feared he would jeopardise his position with the defendant if he instituted proceedings rang hollow. If an excuse of that nature was countenanced, the times strictures imposed by the Statute of Limitations 1957 could easily be set at nought. The plaintiff had complained about the defendant's delay in bringing the application to set aside the order of the court of 25 November 1996 extending the time in which the plaintiff could apply for leave to renew the summons. While the defendant was excessively tardy in bringing the application this could not avail the plaintiff. The defendant had adduced evidence which if it had been before the court on 25 November 1996 would have prompted the court to refuse to renew the summons. The High Court so held in ruling that the order of that date be set aside.
Citations:
RSC O.8 r2
RSC O.8 r1
BAULK V IRISH NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD 1969 IR 66
MCCOOEY V MIN FOR FINANCE 1971 IR 159
O'BRIEN V FAHY T/A GREENHILLS RIDING SCHOOL UNREP SUPREME 21.3.1997 1997/11/3442
Judgement of Ms. Justice Laffoydelivered on 27th November, 1998
This is the Defendant's application under Order 8, Rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 to set aside an order made by this Court on 25th November, 1996 wherein it was ordered that the Plaintiffs time within which to apply for leave to renew the Plenary Summons, which was issued on 2nd March, 1994, should be extended up to and including the date of the order and further that pursuant to Order 8, Rule I the summons should be renewed for a period of six months from the date of the order.
The basis of the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant is that on 5th March, 1991, during the course of his employment with the Defendant in the Defendant's storeroom, the Plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result of the negligence, breach of duty and breach of statutory duty of the Defendant, its servant or agents. The summons was issued on 2nd March, 1994, within a couple of days of the expiration of the relevant limitation period prescribed by the Status of Limitations, 1957.
As is usual, the application to renew the summons was made ex parte. It was grounded on the affidavit of the Plaintiffs solicitor, Gerard F. O'Donnell, which was sworn on 11th September, 1996, two and a half years after the summons had issued. The reason ascribed for failure to serve the summons within the prescribed time was "the delays incurred in preparing the Plaintiffs case for Counsel to draft the Statement of Claim". Two explanations were advanced for the delays. The first was that after the summons was issued it was necessary to engaged an engineer to advise on the question of liability. The engineer reported on 3rd May, 1994, but the Plaintiff was unhappy to proceed on the basis of the report. However, following further discussions with the engineer and the clarification of the engineer's instructions, a revised report issued on 3rd June, 1995. The second was that there was a difficulty in linking the Plaintiffs injuries to the accident, which necessitated Mr. O'Donnell embarking upon correspondence with the Plaintiffs neurosurgeon. When the medical reports and the revised engineer's report were to hand a consultant was held with Counsel on 5th January, 1996 and following that consultation the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monahan v Byrne
...time. 29 A good example of this judicial concern is supplied by the decision of Laffoy J. in O'Reilly v. Northern Telecom (Ireland) Ltd. [1998] IEHC 168, [1999] 1 I.R. 214. In that case the plaintiff issued proceedings against his employer claiming damages for personal injuries just before......
-
Bingham v Crowley and Others
...be misunderstood. The defendants sought to rely upon the observation of Laffoy J. in O'Reilly v. Northern Telecom (Ireland) Limited [1999] 1 I.R. 214 in relation to the absence of any time limit for bringing an application under Order 8, Rule 2. By reason of the conclusion I have reached in......
-
Eileen Chambers v Cyril Kenefick
...Clayton (1998) 1 I.R. 596. He has also referred me to the decision of the High Court in O'Reilly v. Northern Telecom (Ireland) Limited (1999) 1 I.R. 214, and the House of Lords decision in Bailey v. Barret (1988) N.I. 368 in relation to the equivalent rule in the Northern Ireland Rules of 1......
-
Chandler v The Minister for Defence
...to the dictum of Clarke J. at para. 24 of Moloney, and the decision of Laffoy J. in O'Reilly v. Northern Telecom (Ireland) Ltd. [1998] IEHC 168, 1 IR 214: “It follows, therefore, that the fact that the action might otherwise be statute-barred is not in itself a good reason such as might jus......