The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a New York hospital seeking to have a third-party notice set aside in Irish medical negligence proceedings. The court held that the hospital was properly joined and that Ireland was not shown to be an inappropriate forum for the dispute between it and the defendants.
The underlying case was brought by Orla McCarthy against an obstetrician and a Cork hospital over allegedly negligent treatment during her 1992 pregnancy and the stillbirth of her son, Dylan. The defendants sought to join St. Vincent’s Hospital and Medical Centre of New York as a third party, claiming it may have contributed to the death or to injury to Ms McCarthy.
The defendants’ case included an allegation that a prenatal appointment card from the New York hospital recorded Ms McCarthy’s blood type as A Rh positive, while her blood group was A Rh negative. They said they relied on the card and on information given verbally. The defendants also raised an issue about whether anti-D immunoglobulin had been administered after an earlier pregnancy. These were claims advanced in the third-party application, not findings on the underlying liability.
The High Court had refused to set aside service of the third-party notice, finding the hospital was a proper party and declining to send the dispute to New York. The hospital appealed, arguing that procedural requirements for service outside the jurisdiction had not been met and that New York was the more appropriate forum because its treatment took place there, witnesses were based there and New York law would govern aspects of the dispute.
The Supreme Court found that the defendants’ affidavits sufficiently set out the facts supporting a “good arguable case” for joining the hospital. It also considered that hearing the connected disputes together in Ireland would reduce the risk of inconsistent decisions and avoid duplicated proceedings. Although some witnesses would have to travel, the court was not persuaded that New York was clearly the more appropriate forum.
The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. Its decision concerned service and forum for the third-party dispute; it did not determine whether any party was negligent, whether the hospital was liable, or whether the defendants would be entitled to contribution or indemnity.