"Where a defendant's solicitor endorses on the Writ a statement that he accepts service on the Writ on behalf of the defendant, the Writ shall be deemed to have been duly served on that defendant and to have been so served on the date on which the endorsement was made."
Thereafter an obligation arises to enter an Appearance. On 30 October 2001 Mr McGinley wrote, stating:
"… We confirm that we will (my underlining) be authorised to act on behalf of the defendants in this matter. However, we advise etc …"
On 11 January 2002 he wrote:
"…. Please now proceed ex parte to apply for leave to amend the Title of the defendants and on completion forward to us original amended Writ which we will have authority to accept for service." (my underlining)
Neither firm of solicitors appears to have realised that the original Writ was on the file of Joseph Donnelly & Company. But the plaintiff's solicitors required the original Writ in order to make the application and it was necessary to get back the original Writ from Joseph Donnelly & Company in order to make the application to amend the title. That firm must have been under the impression that they had returned the original Writ unendorsed by them. The correspondence between the plaintiff's solicitors and the defendants' solicitors was not misleading, if one ignores the correspondence with the insurers. But I do consider that the failure to return the original writ in order to have the title rectified did contribute to the confusion on the part of the plaintiff's solicitors.