The Supreme Court allowed Felix Moorehouse to amend his personal injuries summons in a claim over injuries sustained while using a metal cutter during a training programme at Wheatfield Prison. The court ruled that the usual power to allow amendments applies to personal injuries cases, and that the amendments must be verified by affidavit.
The injury occurred on 27 November 2008, when Moorehouse was an inmate at the prison. The judgment says three fingers on his left hand were amputated. The two proposed amendments at issue alleged that he was under the influence of methadone administered by a prison agent when the accident happened, and that the defendants negligently permitted him to operate the cutter while it was unsafe and while he was under the influence of the drug. These were allegations in the proposed pleading, not findings about the accident.
The High Court had granted leave for two other proposed amendments but refused these two. One reason was its view that the rules governing personal injuries pleadings limited the court’s discretion to amend them compared with other pleadings.
In a judgment dated 5 March 2015, Mr Justice John Murray rejected that interpretation in a concurring judgment. He held that Order 28, Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts—which allows amendments where just and necessary to determine the real questions in dispute—continues to apply to personal injuries summonses. He found no conflict between that rule and Order 1A, which sets specific requirements for personal injuries pleadings.
The court had decided at the close of the appeal hearing to allow the appeal and permit the two amendments. Murray J agreed with the reasons in Mr Justice MacMenamin’s judgment for allowing them in the circumstances. His judgment states that the permitted amendments should be verified by affidavit. The decision allowed changes to the pleading; it did not determine the underlying negligence claim.