The Court of Appeal allowed a cross-appeal by John Ryan and ruled that Linda Farrell’s personal injury claim was statute-barred. The court held that the two-year limitation period began by 18 February 2010, more than two years before she issued proceedings on 6 September 2012.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 14 October 2016, dealt only with the cross-appeal about the limitation period. The court had separately rejected Ms Farrell’s appeal against the dismissal of her claim on its merits. Mr Justice Peart said it was therefore not strictly necessary to decide the cross-appeal, but did so because the issue could assist other plaintiffs in similar circumstances.
Ms Farrell underwent an ante-natal symphysiotomy at the Coombe Hospital on 25 September 1963, about 12 days before the birth of her first child. She described lasting physical difficulties after the procedure. The trial judge found that a friend, Monica Teeling, contacted her after an RTÉ Prime Time programme about symphysiotomies aired on 18 February 2010. Ms Farrell did not see the programme, but Ms Teeling’s description led her to write to the hospital two days later seeking her medical records. She received records in August 2011, after a further request.
The trial judge had concluded that the limitation period began only when Ms Farrell received those records. Mr Ryan argued that she had enough knowledge in February 2010 to understand that her injuries might be connected to the procedure, and that a claimant could not postpone the start of the limitation period by waiting for medical records.
Ms Farrell argued that, at most, she had a suspicion in 2010. She said she did not know the procedure’s name or that it might have been unnecessary until later, and that the records were needed to connect the procedure to her injuries.
The Court of Appeal held that medical records were not a prerequisite to the limitation period starting. It found that by 18 February 2010 Ms Farrell knew what had been done to her, had experienced adverse effects, and had received information from Ms Teeling linking the procedure to symphysiotomy. The court said that was enough to connect her injuries to the procedure; she did not need to know she had a good case. It allowed the cross-appeal and dismissed the claim on the additional ground that the limitation period had expired. The judgment did not alter the separate dismissal of the claim on its merits.