St. John Harrington v O'Connor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff issued a plenary summons on 27 March 2023 and delivered a statement of claim dated 4 April 2023 claiming damages arising from events of 5 October 2017 at a book-launch held in The Hotel. The Plaintiff alleges assault, sexual assault, trespass to the person and psychiatric personal injuries. The Defendant denies the allegations.

The Police investigated; an investigation file was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions on or about 5 October 2018 and no prosecution was directed to be instituted. The Plaintiff applied to Entity A for an assessment on or about 27 February 2023 and Entity A issued an Authorisation on 1 March 2023. The Authorisation and accompanying notice were sent to an address which was returned as "unknown at this address". The Plaintiff issued the plenary proceedings on 27 March 2023. The Defendant received a copy of the proceedings on 16 October 2023 and entered a conditional appearance on 2 November 2023 (condition limited to Article 24, which fell away).

The Defendant moved on 8 July 2024 (motion issued 22 April 2024) to stay or strike out the proceedings on multiple grounds, principally asserting lack of jurisdiction arising from alleged non-compliance with the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 and the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004; the motion was heard on 20 January 2026 before Judge Heslin.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether these proceedings constitute a "personal injuries action" for the purposes of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 and/or the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 such that the court lacks jurisdiction or the action must have been commenced by a personal injuries summons (in particular whether the pleaded damages for trespass to the person exclude the action from the definition of "personal injuries action" in s.2 of the 2004 Act).
2. Whether the PIAB/Entity A Authorisation (issued 1 March 2023) was invalid or ineffective because the wrong address was used and whether any such defect deprived the Court of jurisdiction to hear the claim.
3. Whether the Plaintiff's claim should be dismissed or stayed for delay, want of prosecution, abuse of process, procedural unfairness or because the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The proceedings should be struck out or permanently stayed because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims for psychiatric injuries where the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (Part 2) and the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (in particular ss.8 and 10).
• The PIAB Authorisation is invalid because the Plaintiff used the wrong address for the Defendant and the Defendant was therefore not properly on notice of the PIAB process.
• The proceedings should be dismissed for delay, want of prosecution, frivolous/vexatious pleadings, procedural unfairness or abuse of process; service was defective.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff obtained an Authorisation from Entity A on 1 March 2023 and therefore was entitled to issue plenary proceedings; the Plaintiff elected plenary proceedings to have the matter before a jury.
• The Plaintiff awaited the outcome of the criminal complaint before pursuing civil redress; medical evidence (including psychiatric evidence) either exists or will be provided.
• The Defendant has in fact received the proceedings (16 October 2023), entered appearance, retained solicitors and counsel and has not challenged service under Order 12, r.26; there is no prejudice from the address issue in the PIAB process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded chronologically and legally. It found that:

• The Defendant received the proceedings on 16 October 2023 and entered an appearance; under Lawless this cured prior service defects because the Defendant did not invoke Order 12, r.26 to set aside service.
• The PIAB/Entity A Authorisation (1 March 2023) correctly named the parties and the date of claim and was prima facie valid; the Defendant did not seek judicial review of Entity A's decision and has not shown prejudice from the use of an incorrect address in the PIAB process.
• The Plaintiff's pleaded damages are for personal injuries described as psychiatric injury; therefore the claim is within the 2003 Act for PIAB purposes. The Defendant's complaint that the action is a personal injuries action which must have been commenced by a personal injuries summons (Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, s.10) depends on the definition of "personal injuries action" in s.2 of the 2004 Act.
• Section 2 of the 2004 Act expressly excludes from "personal injuries action" any action where the damages claimed include damages for trespass to the person. The Plaintiff has pleaded damages for trespass to the person. The Court concluded, on the plain wording of s.2, that the 2004 Act's personal injuries summons procedure did not apply to these proceedings.
• The Court relied on Clarke v. O'Gorman to analyse the relationship between the 2003 and 2004 Acts, noting Clarke does not require that all cases falling within the 2003 Act must proceed under the 2004 Act; a claim can require PIAB authorisation yet fall outside the 2004 Act's personal injuries summons requirement. Clarke was used to distinguish the present facts (here there is a PIAB Authorisation and no challenge to it) from Clarke's facts.
• Delay and want of prosecution arguments failed: there had not been two years of procedural inactivity and Kirwan dictated against dismissal for delay in the interests of justice. Other interlocutory reliefs sought (abuse of process, procedural unfairness, pleadings disclosing no reasonable cause of action) were rejected because the Plaintiff pleaded psychiatric injury and intended to adduce medical evidence, and the pleadings could possibly succeed (per Wilkinson).

Holding and Implications

DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION DISMISSED

Holding: The Court held that the Defendant had not established entitlement to a stay or dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim on any ground asserted in the motion.

Implications: The proceedings will continue. The Defendant's service and PIAB-address complaints did not justify dismissal; the PIAB Authorisation stands as prima facie valid and was not judicially challenged. The Court invited the parties to agree a timetable for pleadings and case management; the Defendant was unsuccessful on costs issues in the interlocutory application and the Court's preliminary view is that costs should follow the event. The matter was listed for final order on 13 February 2026. The Court did not purport to create new precedent but applied statutory interpretation and established authorities to the facts before it.