Allied Irish Banks PLC v Harsveld (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns the adequacy of service of an application for judgment in default of appearance following a summary summons issued on 10 August 2021. The Plaintiff, a banking institution, alleged default in repayment of two loans made in 2008 to the Defendant and a third party. The Plaintiff sought judgment for €389,547.60. The application was supported by a notice of motion dated 25 October 2021 and affidavits confirming the making and drawdown of the loans, the Defendant's default of appearance, and proof of service of the summons and subsequent documents by registered post with signed proof of delivery.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether service of a notice of motion and grounding affidavit for judgment in default of appearance by registered post with signed proof of delivery is adequate and compliant with the Rules of the Superior Courts.
2. Whether the Defendant was properly notified of the hearing date and the Plaintiff’s intention to seek judgment in default of appearance.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the adequacy of service in light of the amendment to Order 9 of the Rules of the Superior Courts by SI 475 of 2017, which introduced the possibility of service of summonses by registered post provided there is proof of delivery. It recognized that this amendment reflects a shift from the previously strict requirement of personal service for summonses. The court reasoned that if service of a summons by registered post with signed proof of delivery is adequate, then service of a notice of motion in default of appearance by the same means should be sufficient, particularly where the Defendant herself signed for the registered post.

The court acknowledged the heightened importance of service in default judgment proceedings but found no injustice in granting judgment given the Defendant’s acknowledged receipt of the motion papers. It distinguished the present situation from cases where someone other than the Defendant signs for the registered post, which was not at issue here. The court concluded that the Defendant was properly notified and that service was sufficient to permit judgment in default of appearance.

Holding and Implications

Judgment granted in favor of the Plaintiff.

The court held that service of the notice of motion and grounding affidavit for judgment in default of appearance by registered post with signed proof of delivery by the Defendant herself is adequate and compliant with the Rules of the Superior Courts. Consequently, the Plaintiff was entitled to judgment in default of appearance. The Plaintiff was awarded its costs. This decision applies the 2017 amendment to Order 9, confirming that registered post service with proof of delivery can substitute for personal service in such motions. No new precedent beyond this application was established.