The High Court has dismissed proceedings brought by Eleanor Leahy against two law firms and the Law Society of Ireland, ruling that she lacked standing to pursue a damages claim arising from her son Nathan’s injury and that her claims against the Law Society could not succeed.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2022, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the proceedings, issued in July 2020, alleged that the firms had negligently failed to advance a medical negligence claim over injuries to Nathan’s left foot. The court assessed the case using a proposed amended statement of claim prepared by Ms Leahy.
The judge held that any claim for the alleged loss of an opportunity to recover damages belonged to Nathan, as the person who suffered the injury. Ms Leahy had acted as his next friend in earlier hearing loss proceedings, but was not a party to those proceedings. Nathan had since reached adulthood, and the judge noted there was no suggestion he lacked capacity to bring a case himself.
Nathan had separately instituted a personal injuries action over the foot injury on 29 September 2022. The judge said, without deciding the point, that it appeared potentially to be within time because the limitation period does not begin to run against a minor until adulthood.
Ms Leahy had also argued that the current proceedings were a personal injuries action for injuries she herself suffered. The judge found that this was not supported by the pleadings, which focused on the alleged failure to pursue a claim for Nathan. Any personal injuries claim by Ms Leahy would have to comply with statutory procedures, including an application to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and proceedings by personal injuries summons. The judge said such a claim in the current proceedings was bound to fail.
The Law Society claim was dismissed on separate grounds. The court found that Ms Leahy had withdrawn her complaints concerning both firms. It also held that she had not exhausted the available adjudicator process and that proceedings challenging the Law Society’s handling of complaints would have required judicial review rather than plenary proceedings.
The judge did not rule on other grounds advanced by the firms, including whether the lack of an independent expert report would defeat a professional negligence claim. He said that issue might arise in proceedings brought by Nathan, who was not a party to this case, and it would be unfair to express a view without hearing from him.
The court said the issue of legal costs would be listed for 25 January 2023 at 10.30am.