Pisarski v Kepak Cork UnLtd Company (Approved) [2026] IEHC 94 (23 February 2026)

Pisarski v Kepak Cork UnLtd Company (Approved) [2026] IEHC 94 (23 February 2026)

A deliberate decision by a solicitor not to serve a summons, and any confusion or misplaced belief by the plaintiff that the action was being progressed, do not constitute special circumstances justifying renewal of the summons nearly four years after issue. The plaintiff is bound by the actions of his solicitor, and the defendant would suffer prejudice if required to defend a stale claim.

Citation
[2026] IEHC 94
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Artur Pisarski; Defendant/appellant: Kepak Cork Unlimited Company
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Circuit Court Refusal to Set Aside Renewal of Summons
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Renewal of Summons, Agency Law, Solicitor Client Relationship, Delay in Service, Prejudice to Defendant
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Renewal of Summons Agency Law Solicitor Client Relationship Delay in Service Prejudice to Defendant

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Artur Pisarski

Plaintiff/respondent

Kepak Cork Unlimited Company

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Circuit Court Refusal to Set Aside Renewal of Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's belief that his case was being progressed and the solicitor's deliberate decision not to serve the summons constitute special circumstances justifying renewal of the summons nearly four years after issue

Ratio Decidendi

A deliberate decision by a solicitor not to serve a summons, and any confusion or misplaced belief by the plaintiff that the action was being progressed, do not constitute special circumstances justifying renewal of the summons nearly four years after issue. The plaintiff is bound by the actions of his solicitor, and the defendant would suffer prejudice if required to defend a stale claim.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal of the defendant against the Circuit Court order dated 13 November 2025 allowed.
  • Order setting aside the renewal of the personal injury summons granted.