The High Court has dismissed a redacted plaintiff’s claims against the Health Service Executive, An Garda Síochána and Novartis Ireland Limited. Mr Justice Heslin ruled that the claims could not proceed, giving different reasons in relation to the three defendants.
The plaintiff, who represented herself, began the proceedings in September 2018. The judgment said they concerned personal injuries and alleged medical negligence, including claims about medication prescribed in 2011. The plaintiff also alleged wrongdoing by gardaí. The court’s account of those allegations is not a finding that the alleged events occurred.
As against the HSE, the court dismissed the claim under section 10(3) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, finding that the interests of justice required dismissal because the proceedings had not been brought in the required form for a personal injuries action. The judge also found the claim an abuse of process and, under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, bound to fail. He noted that the plaintiff had not obtained an independent medical expert’s opinion, despite being told of its importance and having opportunities to seek one.
The claim against An Garda Síochána was dismissed under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The judge concluded that, even taking the pleaded facts as capable of proof, they disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the Gardaí. In considering the inherent jurisdiction application, he also relied on uncontroverted affidavit evidence that undermined several allegations.
The court dismissed the claim against Novartis under section 10(3) and its inherent jurisdiction. It found the pleadings did not identify a specific act or omission by the company that could ground a damages claim. The judge said any claim arising from the medication’s prescription was in substance a medical negligence claim, unsupported by an independent expert opinion, and raised an insurmountable limitation problem because proceedings were issued more than seven years after the alleged prescription and adverse reaction.
The judgment was delivered on 30 September 2022. The judge redacted the plaintiff’s name in the published judgment, citing matters in the papers, including a possible past application under mental health legislation. The court directed the parties to correspond about the form of order, including costs. The judge’s preliminary view was that the usual rule applied and costs should follow the event in favour of all three defendants; if they could not agree, written submissions were to be filed within 14 days of the start of Michaelmas Term on 3 October 2022.