Danske Bank A/S t/a Danske Bank -v- Meagher [2014] IESC 38 (01 April 2014)

Danske Bank A/S t/a Danske Bank -v- Meagher [2014] IESC 38 (01 April 2014)

There is no requirement in the Rules that a defendant be personally within the jurisdiction for substituted service under Order 10, rule 1. The High Court was entitled to order substituted service given the inability to effect prompt personal service. The evidence supported the conclusion that service at the Milltown, Ashbourne address was reasonably calculated to give notice to the appellant, who had used that address for business and legal purposes. The appellant failed to establish lack of notice or an arguable defence. The High Court's refusal to set aside the substituted service and summary judgment orders was correct.

Citation
[2014] IESC 38
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Danske Bank A/S t/a Danske Bank; Defendant/appellant: John Meagher
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Refusing to Set Aside Summary Judgment and Substituted Service
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Summary Judgment, Service of Process, Setting Aside Judgment, Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Banking Law Substituted Service Summary Judgment Service of Process Setting Aside Judgment Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danske Bank A/S t/a Danske Bank

Plaintiff/respondent

John Meagher

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Refusing to Set Aside Summary Judgment and Substituted Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for substituted service was irregular and should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the summary judgment order should be set aside for want of proper service or notice
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of the Rules of the Superior Courts regarding service were met

Ratio Decidendi

There is no requirement in the Rules that a defendant be personally within the jurisdiction for substituted service under Order 10, rule 1. The High Court was entitled to order substituted service given the inability to effect prompt personal service. The evidence supported the conclusion that service at the Milltown, Ashbourne address was reasonably calculated to give notice to the appellant, who had used that address for business and legal purposes. The appellant failed to establish lack of notice or an arguable defence. The High Court's refusal to set aside the substituted service and summary judgment orders was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to set aside substituted service order
  • Refusal to set aside summary judgment order