The Court of Appeal has set aside a High Court order cancelling the renewal of Frank Chandler’s personal injuries summons and renewed the summons for six months from the date of its order. The appeal concerned whether the summons should remain in force; the court did not decide the underlying medical negligence allegations.
Mr Chandler alleges that, while employed in the Irish Naval Service and stationed in Cork, medical advisers acting for the defendants failed to provide appropriate care for high blood pressure and other cardiac risk factors. He suffered a heart attack on 7 December 2013 and claims the alleged failures caused his injury. These remain allegations, not findings in this appeal.
The summons issued on 13 March 2017 but was not served within 12 months. His solicitor said it was issued on legal advice to preserve the claim while medical investigations were completed, and that it went unserved after the expert report arrived because of inadvertence. The defendants were not expressly told that proceedings had issued before the summons expired. However, the solicitor wrote to the first defendant in September 2017 alleging injury and seeking an admission of liability. The State Claims Agency later requested further details and, on 30 November, sought consent to obtain Mr Chandler’s Defence Force medical records, saying it anticipated needing full discovery.
A High Court judge renewed the summons in September 2018. The defendants later applied to set that order aside. In November 2019, the High Court granted their application, finding no good reason for renewal and concluding that the defendants faced the defence of a stale claim. Mr Chandler appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had taken too narrow a view of the September and November 2017 correspondence. Although the defendants had not been given formal notice that proceedings had issued, their response showed they anticipated litigation. That engagement, considered alongside the consequences for Mr Chandler if renewal were refused, could amount to good reason. The appeal court stressed that inadvertence alone was not the good reason; it was part of the circumstances considered with the defendants’ awareness of the intention to litigate.
On the balance of justice, the court accepted that medical records would be central and that medical witnesses might rely largely on those records. It gave limited weight to the claimed difficulty of witness recollection, while recognising that the defendants’ medical personnel could be required to give oral evidence. The court also weighed the serious consequences for Mr Chandler if forced to bring new proceedings, which the defendants said they would meet with a limitation defence. It did not determine that defence or decide whether the claim was time-barred.
The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the High Court order and renewed the summons for six months. It proposed that Mr Chandler receive his appeal costs, subject to either party seeking a different costs order within 21 days of electronic delivery.