Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Former prisoner entitled to renew summons in “slopping out” claim
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses to set aside order renewing plenary summons in respect of claim of infringement of constitutional and ECHR rights, on the grounds that: (a) there was recent precedent to suggest there may be real substance to the plaintiff's claim, though that was not to say that his claim would ultimately be successful; (b) the court was hesitant to exclude such serious allegations of breaches of constitutional and ECHR rights from being heard and adjudicated upon in all the particular circumstance and an alternative claim against the plaintiff’s solicitor, in respect of the failure to serve the summons, did not offer a meaningful alternative; (c) there were many other similar cases awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court that have not proceeded in any meaningful way; and (d) there was no evidence before the court that indicated that there were other applications in addition to those of the plaintiff waiting to be brought.
Application brought by defendants seeking to set aside order renewing plenary summons - one of a very high number of cases brought by onetime prisoners against the State in relation to alleged breaches of constitutional and ECHR rights - lack of in-cell sanitation and "slopping out" - alleged inhuman and degrading treatment and/or breach of the right to dignity and/or breach of the right to privacy - failure to serve summons due to solicitor's oversight - claim by defendants of prejudice in being asked to defend a claim of some antiquity - plaintiff's claimed statute barred if summons not renewed - default on part of solicitor not excuse for delay - party vicariously responsible for actions of solicitor - striking delay - some human error unavoidable but court cannot simply absolve - court must undertake analysis contemplated by Order 8 RSC - plaintiff may have legitimate complaint against solicitor.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
