Power v Telia Company AB & ors (Approved) [2025] IESC 55 (17 December 2025)

Power v Telia Company AB & ors (Approved) [2025] IESC 55 (17 December 2025)

The Supreme Court held that 'special circumstances' under Order 8, rule 1(4) require more than mere notice to the defendant or solicitor error; there must be circumstances beyond the ordinary or usual that justify renewal. Failure to obtain leave to serve out of jurisdiction is fatal to renewal, and neither the Brussels Regulation nor the Lugano Convention displaces the requirement to comply with domestic service rules. The plaintiff failed to establish special circumstances justifying renewal of the summonses against the second and third defendants.

Citation
[2025] IESC 55
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Michael Power; Defendant/respondent: CJSC Indigo Tajikistan; Defendant/respondent: Telia Company AB; Defendant/respondent: Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development SA
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Regarding Renewal of Summonses
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; orders of the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Legal Topics
Renewal of Summons, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Special Circumstances Test, Protected Disclosures, Personal Injuries, Jurisdiction, Statute of Limitations
Civil Procedure Renewal of Summons Service Out of Jurisdiction Special Circumstances Test Protected Disclosures Personal Injuries Jurisdiction Statute of Limitations

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Power

Plaintiff/appellant

CJSC Indigo Tajikistan

Defendant/respondent

Telia Company AB

Defendant/respondent

Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development SA

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Regarding Renewal of Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes 'special circumstances' justifying renewal of a summons under Order 8, rule 1(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts?
  2. 2 Does notice to a defendant or errors by a plaintiff's solicitor amount to special circumstances?
  3. 3 Is failure to obtain leave to serve out of jurisdiction fatal to renewal?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that 'special circumstances' under Order 8, rule 1(4) require more than mere notice to the defendant or solicitor error; there must be circumstances beyond the ordinary or usual that justify renewal. Failure to obtain leave to serve out of jurisdiction is fatal to renewal, and neither the Brussels Regulation nor the Lugano Convention displaces the requirement to comply with domestic service rules. The plaintiff failed to establish special circumstances justifying renewal of the summonses against the second and third defendants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; orders of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Orders

  • Renewal of the personal injuries summons and plenary summons as against the second and third defendants set aside.
  • No renewal of summonses permitted against the second and third defendants.