The Court of Appeal has upheld an order renewing an elderly woman’s personal injuries summons in a medical negligence claim against the Health Service Executive (HSE). It dismissed the HSE’s appeal and ordered the HSE to pay Sheila Murphy’s costs in the High Court and on appeal, with the amounts to be adjudicated if not agreed.
The appeal concerned an order made ex parte by the High Court on 3 February 2020, renewing the summons for three months. The summons had issued on 31 August 2018 and expired without being served. The HSE applied to set aside the renewal, but the High Court refused. The Court of Appeal also set aside the High Court’s “no order as to costs” decision.
Murphy’s claim relates to treatment at Mayo General Hospital in March 2016. She was brought to the hospital with weakness and loss of power in her left arm. Her condition worsened, and a scan the following day showed an ischaemic infarct. She was later transferred to a rehabilitation unit. These are background circumstances set out in the judgment; the appeal concerned renewal of the summons, not whether negligence had occurred.
Murphy’s solicitors said they issued a protective summons while seeking medical records and expert opinions. They maintained that they could not responsibly serve the claim until reports addressed both breach of duty and causation. A further report from a stroke medicine consultant arrived on 14 January 2020. The HSE argued that the solicitors had not acted with sufficient expedition and had allowed the summons to expire without applying to the Master for renewal or notifying the HSE of the claim.
The Court of Appeal held that the amended court rule required a single test: whether special circumstances justified renewal. It said the court must consider the interests of justice, including any prejudice or hardship to each side. Waiting for reasonably necessary medical opinions could amount to special circumstances, provided the plaintiff and legal advisers acted with reasonable expedition. The court found that the High Court had evidence to support its conclusion that there was no significant or culpable delay in obtaining the reports.
The appeal court also found that the absence of advance notice or a courtesy copy of the summons was not a proper criticism in this case. It noted that advance notice could have triggered reporting obligations for the HSE and hospital staff before the claim had a reasonable medical basis. The HSE had identified no specific prejudice, such as incomplete records or an unavailable material witness.
The court dismissed the HSE’s appeal, leaving the renewal in place. It did not decide the underlying negligence claim or the parties’ limitation arguments. It also left open whether the amended rule permits more than one renewal by a court. The Court of Appeal ordered the HSE to pay Murphy’s High Court and appeal costs, subject to adjudication if the parties could not agree.