The Court of Appeal has set aside the dismissal of a former Defence Forces aircraft mechanic’s personal injuries claim, ruling that the High Court relied on a medical report that was inadmissible as hearsay and that the claimant should have had an opportunity to address it in cross-examination.
The court allowed Ian Coughlan’s appeal from a High Court order dismissing his claim as statute barred. It directed that the respondents’ motion be remitted to the High Court for determination in accordance with the appeal judgment. It did not decide whether the claim was in fact brought in time or determine the underlying injury allegations.
Coughlan alleges that he was exposed to toxic chemicals used to degrease aircraft parts during his Defence Forces employment, approximately from 1994 to 2004. He says his employer failed to protect him and that he suffered a range of symptoms. The Minister for Defence Ireland and the Attorney General dispute his claimed date of knowledge and argued that the proceedings were out of time.
Coughlan said he had long suspected a connection between his symptoms and his work, but that doctors repeatedly told him there was no basis for one. He identified a preliminary oral opinion from Professor C.V. Howard in November 2011 as the point when he learned there was probably a causal link. Proceedings were issued shortly after Howard provided a written report in May 2013.
The High Court, hearing the respondents’ motion on affidavits and without oral evidence, treated a report by Dr David Wood, dated January 2009, as showing that Coughlan had enough information to start investigating a claim. It dismissed the case on that basis.
On appeal, the court held that merely exhibiting a document in an affidavit does not make it admissible evidence of the truth of its contents. Wood’s report had been produced for inspection under a court order, but that did not change its evidential status. The appeal court concluded that the report was hearsay and should have been ruled inadmissible. It also rejected the argument that Coughlan had made the report admissible simply by referring in his affidavit to consulting Wood.
The court added that, even if the report had been properly admitted, fairness required that its contents be put to Coughlan in cross-examination before they were used to challenge his sworn account. It said the High Court erred in granting the respondents’ application. The remitted motion remains to be determined.