The High Court has allowed Alan Clifford, suing through his mother and next friend, to amend his pleadings to include a claim under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. It also varied a discovery order in his case against five State defendants, directing the Southern Health Board to disclose further categories of documents.
Mr Justice Declan Budd delivered the judgment on 10 June 2005. The proceedings concern allegations about the education, care and therapies provided to Mr Clifford, who the judgment describes as profoundly autistic. The allegations include failures to assess his needs, provide suitable therapies and secure adequate resources. They remain disputed; the judgment did not determine whether they are true.
The amendment motion sought to add claims under specified Convention articles and the 2003 Act. The Health Board opposed the amendment, arguing, among other things, that the statutory cause of action arose after the original summons and that the Act had no retrospective effect. The other defendants did not take that objection. The judge allowed the amendment so the issues could be addressed in one set of proceedings, noting that the Health Board could plead its position on retrospectivity in an amended defence. He directed that he would hear counsel on consequential steps and the costs of the motion.
Two further motions concerned appeals from the Master of the High Court’s 3 February 2005 discovery order. Both the plaintiff and the Health Board had appealed. The judge upheld discovery of records about therapies and care programmes, and ordered disclosure of reports and assessments concerning Mr Clifford, without excluding reports already listed in an educational psychologist’s report. He also directed discovery of relevant correspondence, reports on facilities he attended, and documents concerning funding for therapies and facilities. A narrowed category covering general policy documents on appropriate training and qualifications for care workers and therapists was also allowed. The Master’s refusal of some other categories was not reversed in the judgment’s stated findings.
The judge stressed that discovery must relate to issues in the pleadings and should not impose an unnecessarily broad burden. He concluded that the funding and training material sought was relevant to the pleaded allegations. The judgment records that the parties still had to address the precise wording of the resulting order and costs. It did not decide the underlying care claims or make a final order on costs.