Plaintiff vs Defendant

This case involved an application by the plaintiff for an extension of time to serve a notice of appeal after the dismissal of his claim in the County Court. The claim related to alleged false imprisonment, assault, battery, trespass to the person, and breach of statutory duty by the defendant.

TLDR:

• Plaintiff sought damages for personal injury due to alleged police misconduct.
• County Court dismissed the claim; plaintiff appealed.
• High Court granted an extension for late service of the notice of appeal.
• Defendant argued against the extension, citing procedural non-compliance and lack of public interest.
• Court balanced prejudice and justice, ultimately favoring the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, represented by Mr. Rooney & Co, sought damages for personal injury due to alleged false imprisonment, assault, battery, trespass to the person, and breach of statutory duty by the defendant. The incident occurred on September 1, 2017, when the plaintiff was mistakenly arrested and strip-searched by police at his home. The police were actually seeking the plaintiff's father, who shared the same name and lived at the same address.

A civil bill seeking damages was issued on August 27, 2020, and the claim was heard in the County Court on December 15, 2022, where it was dismissed. The plaintiff lodged an appeal with the High Court on December 22, 2022, but failed to serve the notice of appeal on the defendant within the required 21-day period due to administrative oversights during the Christmas holidays.

The defendant, represented by Mr. Kennedy, argued that the notice and booklet of appeal were not served in accordance with the Rules and that the court should not exercise its discretion to extend the time. The defendant highlighted the lack of public interest in the case, the modest value of the claim, and the potential prejudice due to the delay.

The court considered the principles set out in Davis v Northern Ireland Carriers [1979] NI 19, which guide the exercise of discretion to extend time limits. The court also took into account the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and the potential prejudice to both parties.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant had waived the right to object to the late service by taking proactive steps to prepare for the appeal. The plaintiff also emphasized the significant impact of the incident on his mental health and the serious breach of his human rights.

After considering the arguments, the court concluded that the balance of prejudice favored the plaintiff. The court noted that the defendant was aware of the appeal from the outset and had taken steps to prepare for it. The administrative error in serving the notice was deemed understandable given the circumstances.

The court granted the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal and directed that the action be referred to the King's Bench judge for review. The court reserved the question of costs to the trial judge, considering it unjust to penalize the plaintiff for the administrative oversight.

Legal representatives: Mr. Rooney & Co (instructed by GR Ingram and Co Solicitors) for the plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Kennedy (instructed by the Crown Solicitor) for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: Master Harvey

Case Citation Reference: [2023] NICA 4