The High Court has refused an application by Saverio Bellante to renew a personal injury summons against Margret Fitzgerald and the Health Service Executive, finding that the reasons given for delaying service did not amount to “good reason” under the court rules.
In a judgment delivered on 26 June 2017, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the claim alleged shortcomings in Bellante’s medical treatment, culminating in the discontinuation of anti-psychotic medication on 9 January 2014. The judgment records that Bellante was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity on 31 July 2015, following the killing of Tom O’Gorman in January 2014.
The personal injury summons was issued on 8 January 2016 and was due to expire a year later. The Master renewed it for six months in December 2016, meaning it expired on 19 June 2017. The Master then purported to renew it for a second time on 14 June 2017. Bellante also applied to the High Court on 20 June for a renewal in similar terms.
The grounding affidavit said the defendants had not been served because of the complexity and nature of the claims, and because an inquest into O’Gorman’s death had been adjourned and had no hearing date. It said the claims could not be sufficiently particularised before the inquest outcome was known.
Justice Humphreys rejected those reasons. He said the inquest’s outcome would not determine whether the defendants had been negligent, and would not determine the personal injury proceedings. The summons, he noted, already set out 36 particulars of alleged negligence and other breaches, as well as five pages of personal injury particulars. Any further details could be added by notice as the case proceeded.
The judge noted uncertainty over whether a second renewal after the initial 12-month period could be granted by the Master or had to be sought from the court. He did not decide that issue. He also assumed, without deciding, that the High Court application could proceed despite being brought after the summons had expired.
The court refused the application. Justice Humphreys directed that if Bellante sought to serve the summons under the Master’s 14 June order, he must serve a copy of the judgment on the defendants at the same time.