- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Maguire v PSW Sales and Logistics and Ors (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
On 19 October 2017 the Plaintiff suffered personal injuries while assisting in unloading pallets at a warehouse owned and operated by Company A and Company B. The injury is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of a forklift driver employed by Company A/Company B.
The Plaintiff instructed Attorney McS (former solicitor). After authorisation from Company F, a personal injury summons was issued on 14 December 2021. Service was not effected within the time prescribed by the Rules; the former solicitor posted the summons on 13 December 2022 and the defendants received it on 15 December 2022 (after lapse). Attorney McS did not renew the summons or transfer the file despite a request dated 21 April 2022.
Following intervention by Company D, the litigation file was obtained from Attorney McS and furnished to the Plaintiff's current solicitor, Attorney Doyle, on 18 February 2025. Attorney Doyle applied to renew the summons and a renewal order was made by the High Court on 12 May 2025 (special circumstances recited: "the difficulties experienced by the plaintiff retrieving his file from the previous solicitors"). The summons was then served.
By notices of motion dated 18 June 2025 and 8 July 2025, the defendants (Company C; and Company A and Company B) applied to set aside the renewal order. The motions were heard on 28 January 2026 by Judge Barr.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court order of 12 May 2025 renewing the personal injury summons should be set aside.
- Whether the circumstances relied upon (difficulty in obtaining the file from Attorney McS and his earlier conduct) constitute "special circumstances" justifying renewal under O.8, r.1(4) as explained in Power v CJSC Indigo Tajikistan & Ors. [2025] IESC 55.
- Whether inadvertence or inattention by a solicitor (Attorney McS) can amount to special circumstances sufficient to justify renewal.
- Whether the defendants have established prejudice such that renewal is not in the interests of justice.
Arguments of the Parties
Company A and Company B / Company C (Defendants)
- The renewal should be set aside because no adequate explanation was given for failure to serve within the prescribed time; the late posting appears to be inadvertence by Attorney McS, and inadvertence by a solicitor is generally not a special circumstance justifying renewal.
- The defendants' solicitors had repeatedly requested service and confirmed authority to accept service; despite that, no renewal application was made until May 2025.
- The delay caused prejudice: trial would occur nine or ten years after the accident, witnesses' memories will have faded, documents may be lost; specific prejudice includes return of the leased forklift to its owner.
- If Attorney McS acted wrongly, the Plaintiff has an alternative remedy against him and that does not justify renewal against the defendants.
Plaintiff
- Attorney Doyle swore that her firm received instructions to take over the file in April 2022 but encountered inordinate difficulties obtaining the file from Attorney McS; the file was obtained from Company D only after Company D's intervention and provided on 18 February 2025.
- Attorney Doyle wrote to defendants' solicitors on 13 March 2025 informing them of the intention to apply for renewal; the application was made promptly and the renewal order was granted on 12 May 2025.
- In these extraordinary circumstances the renewal order should stand.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Power v CJSC Indigo Tajikistan & Ors. [2025] IESC 55 | Establishes correct test for renewal of a summons: a single overall assessment whether there are special circumstances which justify renewal, taking account of all circumstances (not a two-stage "gateway" test). | The court applied the Power single-test approach and assessed whether the special circumstances asserted justified renewal having regard to prejudice and balance of hardship. |
| Moynihan v Dairy Gold Co-operative Society Ltd [2006] IEHC 318 | Authority that solicitor inadvertence will generally not constitute special circumstances. | Relied on as part of the line of authorities indicating inadvertence rarely suffices to justify renewal. |
| Downes v TLC Nursing Homes Limited [2020] IEHC 465 | As above: inadvertence by solicitor generally not special circumstance. | Used to support the proposition that inattention or inadvertence is rarely sufficient. |
| Murphy v HSC [2021] IECA 3 | Discussion that solicitor inadvertence or inattention would rarely constitute special circumstances. | Adopted by the court as consistent with the Power decision on the weight to be given to solicitor inadvertence. |
| Nolan v Trustees of Bridge United AFC [2021] IEHC 335 | Prior authority on renewal and solicitor conduct. | Included among earlier decisions indicating narrow circumstances in which solicitor error justifies renewal. |
| SW v HSE [2025] IEHC 526 | Recent authority on renewal and solicitor conduct. | Relied on as part of the established line that solicitor inadvertence is generally inadequate. |
| Hadnett v Joyce [2025] IEHC 599 | Recent authority addressing renewal principles. | Referenced in support of the general rule regarding solicitor conduct. |
| Galvin v Sharif [2025] IEHC 680 | Case where a solicitor's deliberate misconduct and lying to the client were found to be extraordinary and were considered as special circumstances for a period. | The court distinguished and declined to follow Ferriter J.'s reasoning in Galvin insofar as it would allow a principal to rely on a solicitor's adverse conduct to justify renewal; the present court held that solicitor misconduct does not generally justify renewal against defendants. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Barr applied the single-test from Power v CJSC Indigo Tajikistan & Ors. [2025] IESC 55: whether special circumstances justify renewal when all background factors (interests of justice, prejudice, balance of hardship) are considered together.
The court found service had not been effected within the time prescribed: the defendants did not receive the summons until 15 December 2022 (after lapse on 14 December 2022). The court inferred, absent explanation, that Attorney McS posted on the last day believing that would be valid service—an act attributable to inadvertence or ignorance of the rules.
The court accepted that Attorney Doyle and the Plaintiff acted reasonably and promptly once the file was received on 18 February 2025 and that Attorney McS's failure to transfer the file was wrongful conduct. However, the court characterized the delay from 15 December 2022 until transfer to Company D at end of 2024 as culpable delay attributable to Attorney McS and thus to the Plaintiff under agency principles: omissions by an agent are attributable to the principal.
The court noted it could not make a definitive finding of intentional wrongdoing by Attorney McS because he was not represented and had not been given opportunity to respond, but the correspondence permitted an adverse inference about his non-transfer.
Balancing the factors, the court accepted the defendants had established general prejudice from the long lapse (witness memory fade, potential loss of documents) and some specific prejudice regarding the leased forklift (though not materially significant). Applying Power, the court concluded that the special circumstances relied upon did not justify renewal in May 2025.
The court also declined to extend the reasoning in Galvin v Sharif to allow a plaintiff to rely on his solicitor's wrongdoing as special circumstances that would penalise defendants; where solicitor misconduct exists the plaintiff may have alternate remedies against the solicitor but cannot ordinarily shift the loss to defendants.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The renewal of the personal injury summons made on 12 May 2025 is set aside.
Direct effect: The court proposed to make orders in terms of the defendants' notices of motion (paragraphs 1 of those motions) and directed that parties may file brief written submissions (max. 1,000 words) within two weeks on final orders and costs; the matter was listed for mention on 6 March 2026 for final orders.
No broader new precedent was established; the court applied existing authority (notably Power) and reached a decision on the facts that the asserted special circumstances did not justify renewal and that defendants had established prejudice.
Alert