The Supreme Court has referred a long-running dispute over the settlement of a medical negligence case to the President of the High Court, saying the ward’s best interests must be considered before the appeal can proceed further.
In a judgment dated 6 December 2019, the Court did not decide whether the case had settled for €4.5 million or €4.2 million, or whether the High Court judge who set aside the earlier €4.5 million approval had jurisdiction to do so. It directed that the matter remain in the Supreme Court list for mention until 10 February 2020, when it expected to be updated and would consider any further orders.
The underlying case arose after MO’B suffered serious brain damage following an alleged medical misdiagnosis. He was made a ward of court in December 2013. His wife, AO’B, brought the appeal without a lawyer, seeking to represent his interests and challenge orders made during settlement proceedings.
The dispute centred on negotiations involving a possible Health Service Executive claim for the cost of past care. The defendants’ account was that the settlement offer comprised €4.2 million plus a conditional €300,000, which would lapse if the HSE did not pursue a claim. AO’B’s side maintained that the parties had agreed to €4.5 million without that condition.
The High Court initially approved a €4.5 million settlement in May 2011 and later affirmed its order after the HSE confirmed it would not seek past care costs. In July 2011, however, the judge set aside the earlier orders after concluding there had been no consent to the settlement. The parties later settled for €4.2 million, according to the judgment. In November 2012, another High Court judge dismissed AO’B’s application to undo that outcome and made no order as to costs.
The Supreme Court said MO’B’s wardship status and best interests raised a preliminary question: who should decide whether the appeal ought to continue? It held that this decision must be made by the President of the High Court, who has authority over wardship matters. The Court also said the balance of money paid into court for MO’B had not been fully set out in the orders and needed clarification.
The judgment noted concerns about the delay in making MO’B a ward and said appropriate decisions in his interests should have been made earlier. It made no final determination on the settlement dispute or the appeal’s merits.