Prior v Independent Television News Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1993 WJSC-HC 1343
• Docket Number: No. 10,663p/1988,[1988 No. 10663P]
• Date: 01 January 1993

1993 WJSC-HC 1343

THE HIGH COURT

No. 10,663p/1988

PRIOR v. INDEPENDENT TELEVISION NEWS LTD

HUGH PRIOR

PLAINTIFF

.v.

INDEPENDENT TELEVISION NEWS LIMITED

DEFENDANT

Citations:

BAULK V IRISH NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD 1969 IR 66

RSC O.8 r1

MCCOOEY V MIN FOR FINANCE 1971 IR 159

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Summons

Renewal - Application - Determination - Defendant - Prejudice - Alleged libel in 1983 - Summons issued in 1988 - Application made in 1992 - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 8, r. 1 - (1988/10663 P - Barron J. - 21/12/92) - [1993] 1 I.R. 399

|Prior v. Independent Television News Ltd.|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrondelivered the 21st day of December 1992.

2 The Plaintiff is seeking damages for libel which he claims to have been published by the Defendant in the course of a news broadcast on the 16th of December 1983. The news item related to the freeing of a kidnap victim and stated that two of the kidnappers were arrested. The persons arrested were the Plaintiff and one Joseph McGirl. Proceedings based upon the same essential facts were brought by the Plaintiff against the Gardai, Radio Telefis Eireann and the Irish Press. The actions against the Gardai and Radio Telefis Eireann were compromised. The action against the Irish Press continued to a hearing at which the Plaintiff obtained sustantial damages which were upheld upon appeal to the SupremeCourt.

3 At the time when the Plaintiff gave instructions to his Solicitor to issue the proceedings to which I have referred, he also gave his Solicitor instructions to institute proceedings against the proposed Defendant in this action. The Plaintiff believed that these proceedingswerein train. In fact no steps were being taken to bring the matter to Court. It is disputed as to whether or not an originating letter was sent to the Defendants dated the 28th November 1985. A letter of that date was sent by the same Solicitors to the Defendant on behalf of the other person mentioned in the broadcast and was replied to by the Defendant. However it maintains that no letter was ever received by it on behalf of the Plaintiff and it seems likely that that is correct. Sometime about November or December 1990 the Plaintiff was told by his Solicitor that no Summons had been issued. Subsequently in May 1991 he was told that a Summons had been issued on the 16th of November 1988 but that it had never been served. This application is for a renewal of the Summons to enable it to be served.

4 The Plaintiff says that unless the Summons is renewed he will be unable to maintain his claim against the Defendant. The Defendant maintains that it is no longer in a position to defend proceedings adequately and that if the Summons is renewed and the claim proceeds that it will be prejudiced in its defence.

5 The principles upon which a Court will renew a Summons in the circumstances like the present are set out in Baulk .v. Irish National Insurance Company Limited. In that case the Plaintiff's claim was for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor car accident on the 9th August 1962. The driver of the car died soon afterwards and the Plaintiff was given leave to commence proceedings against the Defendants who were the insurers on risk. These proceedings were issued on the 6th June 1964. They were not served however within the 12 months allowed by the rules nor was anyapplication made for leave to renew the Summons during that period. An application for such leave was made in October 1966 at which time the claim if made by a fresh Summons would have been statute barred. Liberty to renew the Summons was granted by the Supreme Court on appeal from the High Court. The application was made under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts which insofar as is material was as follows:

"1. No original summons shall be in force for more than twelve months from the day of the date thereof, including the day of such date; but if any defendant therein named shall not have been served therewith, the plaintiff may, ... after the expiration of twelve months,... apply to the Court to extend time...