The Court of Appeal has dismissed Damien Murphy’s appeal against the dismissal of his claims against occupational health physician Robert Ryan over a medical report prepared for Canada Life Assurance (Ireland) Limited.
In a judgment delivered on 16 March 2023, Mr Justice Edwards, with Ms Justice Faherty and Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh agreeing, found no basis to overturn the High Court’s decision. The appeal concerned the High Court’s 2018 order dismissing Murphy’s proceedings as bound to fail and as frivolous and vexatious.
Murphy, a retired taxi driver, had claimed income protection after a road traffic accident in January 2010 left him with neck and back injuries. Canada Life arranged an independent medical examination by Ryan in September 2011. Ryan reported that Murphy did not meet the policy’s physical health test criteria, and Canada Life refused the claim. The Financial Services Ombudsman later rejected Murphy’s complaint about Canada Life’s decision. Murphy did not appeal that finding to the High Court.
Murphy then brought proceedings against Ryan, alleging, among other things, fraudulent misrepresentation, professional negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The High Court dismissed the case in November 2018. Its reasons included that the defamation and personal injury claims appeared to be out of time, there was no contract between Murphy and Ryan, and the professional negligence claim lacked a supporting independent expert opinion. It also found no sustainable basis for the other pleaded claims.
On appeal, Murphy argued that he had been denied a fair trial and effective remedy. The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It said the complaints decided by the Ombudsman were binding after no appeal was taken, while Murphy remained able to pursue a professional negligence claim against Ryan if he first obtained a properly credentialled expert report supporting it. The court said he had not done so. It also found no evidence of prejudgment by the High Court judge and no prima facie error of law in the High Court’s approach.
The court dismissed the substantive appeal. It proposed an indicative costs order requiring Murphy to pay Ryan’s costs in both courts, with the amount to be determined by adjudication if the parties could not agree. Murphy was allowed 14 days from delivery of the judgment to request a different costs order. If he makes a timely request, the indicative order will not take effect pending further adjudication.