The High Court has found a “net benefit” in hearing two issues first in a modular trial of a medical negligence claim brought for a child, after concluding that the approach should save court time and costs. The court left the terms of the order to be made for a later mention.
The action was brought by Iarla Thompson, a minor, through his parents and next friends, Sinéad and Stephen Thompson, against the Health Service Executive. The claim alleges that negligence in ante-natal and post-natal care caused severe injuries at birth, including hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, developmental delay and autism spectrum disorder. The HSE denies all allegations of breach of duty. These are allegations, not findings in this judgment.
The claim was amended after a new expert report concluded that the fetal heart rate had not been monitored during labour and that the maternal rate had instead been recorded. The amended claim alleges that the HSE failed to identify this on 18 February 2013, failed to recognise a concerning trace earlier in labour, and consequently delayed delivery. It also alleges that the child should have been intubated from 13:33 that day, about six hours before intubation took place.
The HSE applied for a modular trial to determine first whether the cardiotocography (CTG) was recording the maternal rather than fetal heart rate, and whether the HSE breached its duty by not intubating the child from 13:33. The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing that the intubation question was not a discrete factual issue and that further evidence might be needed. The plaintiff also referred to separate allegations concerning sampling and recording after delivery, although no case was advanced that those matters caused the alleged injuries.
Justice Reynolds said the proposed issues could be determined independently of the balance of the trial. The parties estimated that a single trial would take about 16 weeks, while the HSE estimated that the modular trial would take four to five weeks. The judge found that the staged approach would clearly save court time and costs and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated real prejudice.
The ruling decides how the case will be tried, not whether the HSE was negligent or whether the alleged injuries were caused by its care. The court retains discretion to hear further evidence or legal argument if needed to reach a safe conclusion on either issue. The judge said the case would be listed for mention to hear further from the parties about the order to be made.