The Supreme Court granted the Health Service Executive, Quest Diagnostics Ireland Limited and Medlab Pathology Limited leave to appeal directly from the High Court in proceedings brought by Ruth and Paul Morrissey. The decision, delivered by Chief Justice Frank Clarke on 26 July 2019, concerns permission and the scope of the appeals; it does not decide the appeals themselves.
The court said the appeals could include the standard-of-care issues and other permitted grounds, including causation and, for Medlab, issues concerning the calculation of damages. Some grounds were excluded because they had been abandoned or not actively pursued at the oral hearing. The judgment does not list every ground included in the leave granted.
The applications followed a High Court decision that had made an award of damages to the Morrisseys. The Chief State Solicitor had agreed that the full award would be paid regardless of the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. The Supreme Court therefore said there was no financial urgency, while noting submissions that earlier resolution would benefit Ms Morrissey because she was ill, and that clarification of the standard of care could affect other cases and the work of the newly established CervicalCheck Tribunal.
The court concluded that urgency justified direct appeals and that the interests of justice supported including related grounds in the same appeal. It said the appeals must remain within the grounds for which leave was granted. The parties must accept the High Court’s factual findings and inferences except where a permitted ground specifically challenges a finding. The court proposed that grounds involving factual matters be reformulated to comply with limits on reopening facts on appeal.
The judgment proposed that amended notices of appeal be filed by 29 July 2019, followed by a case-management hearing on 30 July. It also proposed working towards a hearing of no more than three days between 4 and 6 November 2019, with a further case-management hearing in September. These dates and steps are stated as proposed directions in the judgment. The court also left open whether the Morrisseys would argue in their reply that the HSE could not pursue standard-of-care grounds because it had not advanced them in the High Court.