Ms Justice Reynolds delivered a judgment in the High Court on 20 March 2024 in a case brought by the parents and friends of a minor (the “Plaintiffs”) against the Health Service Executive (the “Defendant”). The Plaintiffs sought to amend a personal injury summons issued in 2022, in which they alleged that the minor sustained severe birth injuries due to negligence and breach of duty by the Defendant. It was further claimed that this negligence resulted in the minor’s developmental delay and autism spectrum disorder.
The Plaintiffs applied for an adjournment of the trial on the grounds that an amendment to their claim was necessary following receipt of a new expert report from Mr. Gerald Mason, a consultant in Feto-Maternal Medicine. Mr. Mason was engaged to assess discrepancies between the reports of the Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s experts. After reviewing all relevant evidence, Mr. Mason concluded that there had been a failure to properly monitor the foetal heart rate during labour, leading to the maternal heart rate being mistakenly recorded instead. He determined that this failure constituted a breach of duty and was directly related to the minor’s poor condition at birth.
Under Order 28 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the Court has discretion to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage where necessary to determine the issues between the parties. The Court outlined two key considerations in deciding whether to grant the amendment: first, whether the amendment was necessary to resolve the real issues in dispute, and second, whether it could be made without causing prejudice to the Defendant, or whether any potential prejudice could be addressed through appropriate conditions.
The Plaintiffs’ legal advisors argued that an adjournment and amendment were essential, given that Mr. Mason’s opinion significantly altered the nature of the claim. The Defendant did not present any substantial argument against the necessity of the amendment, nor did it suggest that the proposed amendment would cause it undue prejudice.
The Court found that the amendment pertained to fundamental issues in the case, specifically the obstetric care provided to the mother at the time of the minor’s birth. The core dispute centered on the extent of hypoxia suffered by the minor, whether it resulted from negligence by the Defendant, and whether it contributed to the minor’s neurodevelopmental issues and autism. The Court determined that Mr. Mason’s expert opinion on obstetric care would be crucial in resolving these matters and granted the Plaintiffs’ application to amend the personal injury summons.
Click here to read the judgment.