Uwaydah v Nolan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 21 February 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] IEHC 35
• Docket Number: 94/6457P
• Court: High Court
• Date: 21 February 1997

[1997] IEHC 35

THE HIGH COURT

94/6457P

UWAYDAH v. NOLAN

MUNIR UWAYDAH

PLAINTIFF

AND

JOHN NOLAN, TRIMATIC LIMITED AND TRANSPORT EQUIPMENTLIMITED

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

RSC O.9 r15

LAURIE V CARROLL 98 CLR 310

Synopsis:

Practice & Procedure

Service on wife of defendant; whether defendant within the jurisdiction at the relevant time Held: Service deemed good (High Court: Barron J 21/02/1997)

Uwaydah v. Nolan & ors

1 Judgment of Justice Barrondelivered on the 21 day of February, 1997.

2 There are two applications before the Court. The first named Defendant seeks an Order striking out the Plaintiff's claim as against him or alternatively striking out the proceedings in their entirety on the grounds of want of jurisdiction and/or as constituting an abuse of process. The Plaintiff seeks an Order pursuant to Order 9, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Superior Court declaring the service on the first named Defendant's wife on the 18th October, 1995 be deemed sufficient service on the first named Defendant.

3 A number of affidavits have been filed on behalf of the parties. The facts in relation to service are disputed both as to the mode of service and in any event as to its validity.

4 A private investigator received instructions from the Plaintiff's solicitors on the 16th October, 1995 to serve these proceedings on the first named Defendant. The address set out on the summons was "the Laurels", Carlow. Having found the telephone number in the telephone book, he rang "the Laurels" and asked for the first named Defendant. Theperson who answered said that the Defendant was not there at that time and was not sure if he would be back. The summons server went down to Carlow on the following day and spoke to the same person on an intercom at the gate of the home. He was told that the Defendant was not there and that that person did not know what time he would be home.

5 On the following day he called to the house at approximately 5.15 p.m. He was unable to get in. At 6 o'clock a woman drove up who said that she was his wife. She said that she thought the Defendant was in Germany. I am satisfied that the person with whom the summons server was dealing was at all times the Defendant's wife.

6 She disputes the facts deposed to by the summons server. She says that there were a number of telephone calls. She says that she was not prepared to give information but does not deny having told the summons server what he says he was told. She says that she was made uneasy and avers that the basis of this unease was the failure by the summons server to say why he wanted to speak to the Defendant. While there is an implication that he was asked a question which he refused to answer there is no specific averment to that effect. This in any event is specifically denied by the summons server.

7 There was no real dispute as to what occurred when the document was given to the Defendant's wife. The conditions under which it is alleged that it was given to her are accepted.

8 From...