Nowak v The Courts Service of Ireland (Approved) [2026] IECA 81 (11 May 2026)

Nowak v The Courts Service of Ireland (Approved) [2026] IECA 81 (11 May 2026)

The High Court correctly applied the legal test under O. 27, r. 9(1), which requires extension of time for delivery of defence only if necessary in the interests of justice, not upon proof of special circumstances or a defence on the merits. The failure to make an 'unless order' under O. 27, r. 9(2) was academic as the defence had already been delivered before the hearing. The delay was not inordinate, there was ongoing engagement, and no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff was shown. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2026] IECA 81
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Agnieszka Nowak; Defendant/respondent: The Courts Service of Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Extending Time for Delivery of Defence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Extension of Time, Interests of Justice, Negligence, Duty of Care, Court Procedure
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Extension of Time Interests of Justice Negligence Duty of Care Court Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agnieszka Nowak

Plaintiff/appellant

The Courts Service of Ireland

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Extending Time for Delivery of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in extending time for delivery of defence under O. 27, r. 9 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether the High Court applied the correct legal test for extension of time
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was required to make an 'unless order' under O. 27, r. 9(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly applied the legal test under O. 27, r. 9(1), which requires extension of time for delivery of defence only if necessary in the interests of justice, not upon proof of special circumstances or a defence on the merits. The failure to make an 'unless order' under O. 27, r. 9(2) was academic as the defence had already been delivered before the hearing. The delay was not inordinate, there was ongoing engagement, and no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff was shown. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court extending time for delivery of defence affirmed
  • No judgment in default entered for plaintiff