Background: Sherry v Murphy & Ors
In Sherry v Murphy & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a High Court judgment and order that refused to fix a date for the hearing of a motion brought by a defendant. The motion challenged the adequacy of a Personal Injury Summons, with the defendant seeking several orders based on alleged failures to comply with High Court procedure and the requirements of Part 2 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004.
High Court Decision
When the motion was called, counsel for the defendant requested that a date be fixed for its hearing. This request was opposed by counsel for the plaintiff, who argued that the case’s progress was impeded because the first defendant had not yet delivered a defence and was seeking to have his motion assessed in advance.
The High Court judge ruled that the defendant should first deliver his defence and then bring his motion, which could be considered alongside the main hearing. The judge declined to strike out the motion but adjourned it generally and reserved the costs.
Substance of the Appeal
The appeal argued that the High Court judge’s discretion to adjourn the motion irredeemably prejudiced the defendant. It was contended that the order defeated the objectives of Part 2 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004 and failed to properly balance justice between the parties.
The Court of Appeal noted that while the claim that the order irredeemably defeated the Act’s objectives may have been overstated, the defendant had a valid argument that the requirements of the Act had not been met in the way the claim was pleaded.
Court of Appeal Findings
The Court of Appeal considered the correct High Court procedure and allowed the appeal, remitting the motion to the High Court for hearing. The Court acknowledged the challenges judges face in managing busy lists and limited resources, stating:
“I acknowledge that in the management of busy lists and scarce resources a significant margin of appreciation must be afforded to the list judge but in my view, he was led into error by the summary of the issues. In my view, the refusal of the High Court judge to fix a date for the hearing of the motion created a substantial risk of significant procedural unfairness coupled with a likelihood that no effective remedial action could be put in place later to address the very significant additional costs to which the first defendant was exposed in the event that his application proved to be successful.”
