The High Court has refused an application to consolidate two claims arising from the death of a 26-year-old woman, but ordered that they be listed together before the same trial judge.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the ruling on 30 June 2021. The motion was brought by the first and second defendants in proceedings issued by Graham Byrne against Orla Johnston, trading as Grange Cross Medical Centre, and others. They sought to combine Byrne’s case with a separate action brought by the deceased’s mother, Bernadette McDonnell.
The defendants argued that both cases arose from the same events and had significant overlap. They said consolidation could reduce duplicated work and costs, including where the plaintiffs relied on the same experts. The application was opposed. Byrne’s solicitor said the claims involved distinct issues after liability was considered, including separate personal injury and damages evidence. The solicitor also cited practical difficulties arising from the breakdown in relations between Byrne and the deceased’s family.
The judge applied the three questions set out by the Supreme Court in *Duffy v News Group Newspapers Ltd*: whether there was a sufficiently important common issue; whether consolidation would substantially save expense or inconvenience; and whether it risked confusion or a miscarriage of justice.
The court accepted there was substantial overlap because the claims arose from the same fatal injury. It did not consider confusion or a miscarriage of justice likely if the cases were consolidated. But it found that consolidation at this late stage risked adding delay to proceedings that had already taken several years. The pleadings had closed, the defence had been delivered in May 2019, and the plaintiff appeared ready to serve notice of trial. The judge also took account of the practical difficulties created by the breakdown in relations, alongside the other factors.
The court declined to consolidate the proceedings. It ordered instead that they be listed together so the same trial judge could manage them in an expeditious and economical way. The judgment did not determine liability or damages in either underlying claim.
The judge said he was minded to order costs against the defendants who brought the unsuccessful motion. Any party objecting was directed to notify the registrar or judicial assistant within 14 days, after which a brief costs hearing would be scheduled. The judgment does not record a final costs order.