The High Court has refused applications by a cardiologist and a hospital company to set aside the renewal of a medical negligence summons brought by a doctor who now works in Australia. The ruling concerns whether the expired summons could be renewed; it does not decide the underlying negligence allegations.
The plaintiff alleges that a heart procedure at the Mater Private in December 2013 caused bleeding that led to a pelvic haematoma and a deep vein thrombosis. She says she later suffered continuing leg pain and swelling. The defendants have not been found liable in this judgment.
The summons was issued in December 2015 but was not served before it expired in December 2016. In April 2018, the court renewed it on an ex parte basis, and it was served the following day. The first and fourth defendants then applied to set that renewal aside. The High Court considered those applications afresh, taking account of evidence that had not been before the judge who granted renewal.
The original application relied on the plaintiff having recently understood that her injuries were more debilitating than she had first thought. Mr Justice Noonan said that explanation did not account for why the summons had gone unserved before its expiry.
A later report from psychiatrist Dr Catherine Anne Llewellyn said the plaintiff had struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder and that disabling symptoms likely delayed or prevented her from pursuing legal avenues. The judge accepted that this opinion explained her failure to serve the summons during its initial 12-month period, despite criticism from the defendants that it differed from the reason first advanced.
The defendants said the delay had prejudiced their ability to investigate, including because some conversations relied on by the plaintiff were not recorded in hospital notes. The plaintiff pointed to earlier correspondence seeking confirmation of the hospital’s correct legal title. The judge found that correspondence did not give meaningful notice of the claim that was eventually brought. He accepted that delay caused some prejudice, particularly concerning undocumented conversations, while noting the importance of contemporaneous medical records in medical negligence cases.
Mr Justice Noonan concluded that the prejudice to the defendants did not outweigh the harm the plaintiff would face if renewal were set aside and her claim became statute-barred. He refused both applications. The summons therefore remains renewed; the judgment makes no finding on the merits of the medical negligence claim.