Balancing Procedural Compliance and Access to Justice: Clarifying the “Interests of Justice” Test for Extension of Time under Order 27 Rule 9

Introduction

The High Court’s decision in Nowak v Courts Service of Ireland [2025] IEHC 202 establishes a refined application of the “interests of justice” standard found in Order 27 Rule 9 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The plaintiff, Agnieszka Nowak, sued the Courts Service of Ireland in negligence for alleged administrative errors arising from third-party litigation in the Covid-era. When the defendant failed to deliver its defence within statutory time limits, the plaintiff moved for default judgment; the defendant sought an extension of time. Ms Justice Nuala Jackson was called upon to determine whether it was necessary in the interests of justice to extend the period for filing a defence.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court granted a seven-day extension for the delivery of the defence. In delivering the ex tempore judgment, Ms Justice Jackson:

Outlined the undisputed chronology of service and correspondence, including the plenary summons (6 September 2024), the “28-day letter” (4 November 2024) and subsequent exchanges up to the motion for default judgment (5 December 2024).
Identified Order 27 Rule 9 as the governing provision, requiring the court to extend time if “necessary in the interests of justice.”
Considered relevant authorities on the “interests of justice” standard and the constitutional right of access to courts.
Found that the defence was now ready and that the delay was neither inordinate nor prejudicial to the plaintiff; ongoing engagement and the provision of particulars supported efficiency and fairness.
Exercised the discretion to extend time by seven days, with an indicative order of no order as to costs and liberty to apply.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Comcast International Holdings Inc & Ors v Minister for Public Enterprise & Ors [2012] IESC 50 – Clarke J. emphasized that Order 27’s default-pleading provisions serve to expedite proceedings rather than terminate them. This informed the court’s view that an extension mechanism promotes procedural efficiency.
Bergin v McGuinness [2022] IEHC 151 – Dignam J. endorsed Clarke J.’s reasoning regarding the primary purpose of Order 27 to keep cases alive, reinforcing that extensions may be granted in the interests of justice.
Gokul v Aer Lingus [2013] IEHC 432 – Hogan J. observed that rigid compliance with procedural rules may conflict with the constitutional right of access to courts, a principle applied to both plaintiffs and defendants.
Nowak v Courts Service [2024] IECA 266 – An appellate decision on judicial review time limits, cited by the plaintiff but distinguished as involving a different statutory regime and stricter test for extension.
Farrell v RAS Medical Ltd [2024] IEHC 369 – Concerned the setting aside of judgment after an “unless” order, governed by a special-circumstances test which differs from the “interests of justice” criterion under Order 27 Rule 9.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in five steps:

Identification of the applicable rule: Order 27 Rule 9, which allows default judgment unless the court is satisfied that an extension is “necessary in the interests of justice.”
Recognition of the dual objectives of the rule: the need to expedite litigation and the constitutional imperative of fair access to the courts.
Application of precedent to interpret “interests of justice” as a flexible, case-sensitive standard favoring resolution on the merits where delay is modest and engagement continual.
Evaluation of facts: the defence was complete albeit late, the delay was not inordinate, particulars had been served (enhancing clarity and potential efficiency), there was ongoing engagement, and no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff.
Exercise of judicial discretion: a short extension (seven days) was proportionate to allow the defendant to be heard on the merits, balancing both parties’ interests and upholding constitutional values.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision will shape future default-pleading motions in several ways:

Clarification of “interests of justice”: Litigants will know that a modest delay accompanied by active engagement and no serious prejudice militates in favor of an extension.
Emphasis on meaningful engagement: Parties who correspond promptly, exchange particulars, and keep the other side informed will strengthen their case for relief from default.
Balancing speed and access: Courts will continue to guard against undue delay but will avoid mechanical application of time limits at the expense of fair adjudication.
Procedural drafting: Practitioners will pay closer attention to 28-day letters, notices for particulars and timely application for extensions to forestall default motions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Order 27 Rule 9: A rule allowing a plaintiff to seek default judgment if a defendant fails to deliver a defence, subject to extension if “necessary in the interests of justice.”
28-day letter: A formal reminder under the Rules of the Superior Courts that a defence must be filed within eight weeks, offering an additional 28 days if agreed.
Notice for Particulars: A request for additional details about a claim, which does not pause the statutory clock for filing pleadings but aims to clarify issues early.
Default judgment: A binding court order granting relief to the plaintiff when the defendant fails to respond in time.
Constitutional right of access: The fundamental principle that all parties—plaintiffs and defendants—must have a fair opportunity to present their case.

Conclusion

The judgment in Nowak v Courts Service of Ireland [2025] IEHC 202 represents a significant refinement of the “interests of justice” test under Order 27 Rule 9. It affirms that modest delay, active engagement, provision of particulars and absence of prejudice justify short extensions to file a defence. By balancing procedural timeliness with the constitutional right of access, the High Court has underscored the courts’ duty to resolve disputes on the merits wherever possible. Practitioners should heed this guidance to ensure compliance with time limits while maintaining constructive communication to preserve their clients’ rights.