The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by an anonymised woman against an order requiring her to disclose communications with her father in a personal injuries case against Children’s Health Ireland at Crumlin. The court added restrictions on how any disclosed material could be inspected, used and retained.
The case concerns genetic test results from October 2017. The hospital admitted that it negligently sent the results to the woman’s parents and to a consultant paediatrician who was treating her brother. The woman said she had asked that her father not be told and had been assured the results would remain confidential. She learned from her mother that her father had received them.
In her claim, the woman alleges that she was estranged from her father, feared his reaction to the results and suffered distress and psychiatric injury after the disclosure. Her pleadings also describe strain in their relationship and negative interactions with her father and paternal grandmother. The hospital requires proof of those allegations and of compensable injury.
The hospital sought records of communications between the woman and her father from 1 June 2017 to 1 June 2018. The High Court ordered discovery. On appeal, the woman argued that the request intruded on private family communications and was disproportionate. The Court of Appeal found that the relationship with her father and the effect of the disclosure were central to the claim she had brought. It held that the communications could help establish the nature of their relationship and the impact of the disclosure, and that refusing discovery risked unfairness to the hospital.
The court said the requested period, which began about six months before the disclosure and ended about six months afterwards, was not unreasonable. It also noted that the woman had not proposed specific limits or given evidence about the nature and extent of any communications that might be disclosed.
The appeal was dismissed and the 12-week period for making discovery was affirmed. The court varied the order to restrict circulation and use: initially, one hard copy is to be provided to the State Claims Agency; access is limited to the responsible solicitor, counsel, relevant hospital decision-makers and any retained expert, who may inspect but not keep copies. The material may be used only to defend the claim and must be returned when the proceedings are determined. The High Court may vary these restrictions. Any dispute about redactions is for that court.
The Court of Appeal indicated provisionally that the woman should pay the appeal costs, subject to a stay pending determination of the proceedings. She has 14 days to seek a further hearing on costs. The judgment does not determine the underlying personal injuries claim.