Aljouji & Ors v Laing O'Rourke Ireland Ltd & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application brought by the fourth named defendant, Company A, seeking to set aside an order made by the High Court renewing the plenary summons for a period of three months. The underlying proceedings involve approximately 200 plaintiffs against 22 defendants related to alleged building defects causing water ingress and damage to residential and commercial units in a mixed-use development known as The Cubes at Beacon South Quarter, The City.

The summons and a concurrent summons were issued on 23 July 2018. Some defendants were outside the jurisdiction, necessitating a concurrent summons for those within the jurisdiction. Company A is also a defendant in related proceedings.

Correspondence between Solicitors for Company A and Solicitors for the plaintiffs revealed that Company A’s solicitors initially requested that service not be effected while instructions were sought. Eventually, authority to accept service was confirmed, but due to an oversight by the process server, service on Company A was not effected. Meanwhile, two defendants had moved abroad, requiring amendment and renewal of the summons before its expiry on 22 July 2019. An ex parte application was made on 8 July 2019 to amend and renew the summons, which was granted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the order renewing the plenary summons should be set aside insofar as it applies to Company A.
2. Whether reasonable efforts had been made to serve Company A within the twelve-month period permitted by the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, Order 8.
3. The proper application and interpretation of Order 8, Rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 concerning renewal and setting aside of summons renewal orders.

Arguments of the Parties

Company A's Arguments

• Company A contended that it had suffered prejudice, particularly due to the death of a key individual involved in the construction in 2012, which allegedly impaired its ability to defend the claim.
• Company A sought to have the order renewing the summons set aside on the basis that service was not properly effected.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The plaintiffs argued that reasonable efforts had been made to serve Company A, including serving both Company A and its solicitors within the twelve-month period.
• They emphasized that the failure to effect formal service was due to inadvertence and oversight by the process server, not deliberate withholding.
• They relied on the principle that service of a copy of the summons and acknowledgement of authority to accept service constituted reasonable efforts under the Rules.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully examined the circumstances surrounding service on Company A. It noted that although formal service was not effected due to an oversight by the process server, a copy of the summons was served both on Company A and its solicitors within the prescribed twelve-month period. The solicitors had acknowledged authority to accept service. The Court found that reasonable efforts had been made to serve Company A, consistent with the requirements of Order 8, rule 1(2) of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986.

The Court further explained that inadvertence and oversight, as established in precedent, can constitute a "good reason" for renewing a summons. The Court rejected Company A’s claim of prejudice based on the earlier death of a key individual, noting no application had been made to dismiss the proceedings on that basis. The Court also emphasized that the renewal order, made ex parte, must be subject to full de novo consideration when challenged, and that it was empowered to confirm the renewal if justified.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the application brought by Company A to set aside the renewal order of the summons.

The direct effect of this decision is that the plenary summons remains renewed and valid against Company A, allowing the proceedings to continue. The Court did not establish any new legal precedent but applied established principles concerning service and renewal of summons under the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986.