The High Court has refused a hospital defendant’s application to split a family’s nervous-shock proceedings into separate stages, finding that the proposed first stage could not fairly be decided apart from the remaining issues.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin delivered the ruling on 2 November 2021. The motion concerned proceedings brought by Anne Bradley and three other family members against Lorcan Birthistle, a nominee of St James’ Hospital. The plaintiffs claim psychiatric injuries arising from events during the hospital treatment of Seamus Bradley, their husband and father, who died in October 2019. Their allegations of negligence and injury remain disputed; the judgment did not decide them.
The defendant sought an initial hearing on whether the plaintiffs had recognised psychiatric injuries, whether those injuries were shock-induced, and whether the defendant owed them a duty of care to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury. The defendant argued that resolving those questions first could save the time and expense of a later hearing on the medical-negligence issues if the claims failed at that stage.
The plaintiffs opposed the split. They argued that deciding the proposed questions would require evidence about Mr Bradley’s treatment and condition, what medical staff told the family, what the plaintiffs witnessed, and the psychiatric effects they say they suffered. That evidence, they said, overlapped with the issues of breach of duty, causation and damages.
Justice Heslin accepted that the court had jurisdiction to order a modular trial, but said the usual position was a single hearing of all issues. He found the defendant had not shown a clear saving in court time or costs. The proposed first stage would itself require evidence from the plaintiffs, psychiatrists and medical staff who treated Mr Bradley or spoke with the family. Some of those witnesses could also be needed later on the disputed treatment issues.
The judge also identified potential prejudice from dividing the case, including repeated evidence and delay if the first stage were appealed. Psychiatric evidence relevant to whether an injury existed would also bear on damages, which the proposed arrangement left for later. He concluded that the proposed questions were complex, fact-dependent and not capable of fair determination in isolation.
The court refused the defendant’s application. It made no findings on whether the hospital defendant was negligent, whether the plaintiffs suffered compensable psychiatric injuries, or whether they are entitled to damages. Justice Heslin’s preliminary view was that costs should follow the event, with the plaintiffs having succeeded on the motion. He directed that written submissions be provided within 14 days if either side sought a different costs order.