The High Court dismissed a young man’s claims against a paediatrician and Mount Carmel Hospital, finding that his pleadings made no allegations of negligence against either defendant and disclosed no cause of action against them. The motions did not determine the separate claim against the obstetrician who was the first defendant.
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Binchy on 12 April 2018. The plaintiff, born at Mount Carmel Hospital in 1995, has severe cerebral palsy, cortical blindness and quadriplegia. He sued through his mother and next friend.
The case began in 2008 with a personal injury summons alleging professional negligence against the obstetrician. The summons was renewed in 2013 after it had not been served. The obstetrician’s challenge to that renewal was rejected by the High Court and, on appeal, by the Court of Appeal.
In 2016, the obstetrician sought to join the paediatrician and hospital as third parties, alleging that neonatal care at Mount Carmel had been deficient and contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff then sought to have them joined as co-defendants. His solicitor said the decision followed the obstetrician’s assertions, and was intended to address the risk that differing expert opinions on causation might leave the claim without an effective defendant. The plaintiff’s amended summons acknowledged that he had no expert evidence of his own supporting allegations against the paediatrician or hospital and relied on the obstetrician’s expert opinion.
The paediatrician and hospital applied to strike out the claims against them. They argued that the plaintiff had no evidence or sufficiently particularised allegations to support a professional negligence claim. The plaintiff argued that the obstetrician’s expert evidence supplied reasonable grounds to join them and that the court should not dismiss the claims at this stage.
The court held that the plaintiff had an opportunity, after the third-party application, to seek his own experts’ views and adopt allegations against the two defendants, but had not done so. The judgment also noted that the plaintiff’s own expert, Dr Anoo Jain, had considered the paediatrician’s neonatal care satisfactory. The judge concluded that the plaintiff was relying on another defendant’s allegations rather than advancing a case of his own, and that the claims against the paediatrician and hospital were bound to fail.
The court dismissed those claims under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Having reached that conclusion, the judge said it was unnecessary to decide the defendants’ other arguments, which included delay, limitation and fair-trial grounds. The judgment did not determine the claim against the obstetrician.