IEHC 460 — IEHC 460 — High Court

THE HIGH COURT

[2026] IEHC 460

[Record No. 2023/3847 P]

BETWEEN

DAVID MCDONALD

PLAINTIFF

-AND-

THE TIMES UK LIMITED

DEFENDANT

Ex tempore ruling of Mr Justice Paul Coffey delivered on the 9th day of March 2026

1. This is an application by the plaintiff for an extension of time to serve an amended

plenary summons following an order of the High Court granting liberty to amend the title

of the proceedings.

2. The proceedings arise from an online newspaper article published in “The Times”

on 14 August 2022. The plenary summons was issued within the one-year limitation period

applicable to defamation actions. The defendant was originally named The Times UK

1 Limited. By letter dated 14 August 2023 the defendant’s solicitors indicated that the correct

publisher of the online newspaper was The Times Media Limited. The plaintiff thereafter

issued a notice of motion seeking leave to amend the plenary summons so as to correctly

identify the publisher.

3. On 4 December 2023, the Court made an order pursuant to Order 28 rule 6 and

Order 15 rule 13 granting the plaintiff liberty to amend the plenary summons. That order

was made with the consent of The Times Media Limited. Upon perfection of the order, the

plaintiff had fourteen days within which to serve the amended plenary summons pursuant

to Order 28 rule 7.

4. Through oversight, that step was not taken. The omission was only discovered in

January 2025. Correspondence followed and, when consent to an extension was not

forthcoming, the present application was brought seeking an extension of time within

which to serve the amended plenary summons.

5. The defendant opposes the application on the basis that the discretionary two-year

period referred to in the Statute of Limitations 1957, as amended, has now expired. It is

said that if the amended summons were now permitted to be served the defendant would

be deprived of a limitation defence which might otherwise have been available.

6. I do not accept that submission.

7. First, the proceedings themselves were instituted within the primary one-year

limitation period. The amendment sought and obtained did not introduce a new cause of

action. It corrected the identity of the corporate entity responsible for publication of the

online newspaper. It is clear from the correspondence that the plaintiff always intended to

sue the publisher of the article and that The Times Media Limited was aware of that fact.

2 8. Secondly, the order permitting the amendment was made with the consent of The

Times Media Limited. At that point, the one-year limitation period had already expired and

the position regarding the statutory time limits was fully apparent. In those circumstances

it is difficult to see how the defendant can now assert prejudice arising solely from the

passage of time after the amendment had been authorised.

9. Thirdly, the failure to serve the amended summons within the time specified arose

through oversight. While that represents a regrettable procedural lapse, it was not deliberate

and there is no suggestion that it has caused any forensic prejudice in the preparation or

defence of the claim. Insofar as there has been delay in progressing the proceedings

following the order of the High Court of 4 December 2023, that delay remains fully

reckonable in the event that any application is brought in due course to dismiss the

proceedings for want of prosecution under the principles identified by the Supreme Court

in Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] IESC 21.

10. The Court’s task in this application is therefore a procedural one. At issue is

whether time should be extended to permit compliance with the order previously made. In

exercising that discretion, the Court must consider the length and explanation for the delay,

the conduct of the parties, and whether any real prejudice would arise from granting the

relief sought.

11. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings were instituted within time, that the

amendment simply corrected the identity of the intended defendant, that the amendment

was consented to, and that no substantive prejudice has been demonstrated, I am satisfied

that the interests of justice favour permitting the matter to proceed on its merits.

3 12. In those circumstances I will grant the plaintiff an extension of time for service of

the amended plenary summons. The amended plenary summons is to be served within

fourteen days from today. The defendant will have the usual time thereafter to enter an

appearance and deliver any defence, including any limitation defence it considers open to

it.

4