Judgment: 2025-07-28 · Court archive

Court of Appeal rejects O’Regan family bid for wider Bon Secours discovery

Court of Appeal · [2025] IECA 151

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • David O’Regan (Plaintiff)
  • Gerald O’Regan
  • Dermot Lanigan
What

Court of Appeal rejects O’Regan family bid for wider Bon Secours discovery

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Bon Secours Hospital
  • High Court
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt by Colette and David O’Regan to obtain broader discovery from Bon Secours Hospital in proceedings arising from the death of Gerald O’Regan in March 2022.

The Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt by Colette and David O’Regan to obtain broader discovery from Bon Secours Hospital in proceedings arising from the death of Gerald O’Regan in March 2022.

Mrs O’Regan and her son David are suing the hospital and consultant urologist Dermot Lanigan for damages. The appeal concerned only what documents the hospital must disclose before trial, not whether either defendant was negligent or liable for Mr O’Regan’s death.

The family sought documents relevant to whether the hospital could be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of Mr Lanigan and other clinical staff. Vicarious liability can make one party legally responsible for wrongdoing committed by another because of the relationship between them.

The hospital had already accepted responsibility, if liability were established, for its nursing staff and non-consultant hospital doctors. It offered to disclose documents evidencing its contractual relationship with Mr Lanigan but resisted the much wider category sought.

The High Court agreed with the hospital. The O’Regans appealed.

Mr Justice Brian O’Moore, delivering the Court of Appeal judgment, held that the plaintiffs had not properly pleaded the basis on which they said the hospital was vicariously liable for Mr Lanigan. Their personal injuries summons described him as a “servant” of the hospital but did not explain the factual basis for the alleged relationship.

The court also examined nine subcategories of documents later proposed by the plaintiffs. Several sought material concerning all clinicians working in the hospital during periods when Gerald O’Regan was a patient. The court found those requests exceptionally broad and disproportionate. Other categories had not been shown to be relevant or necessary.

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court’s costs order in favour of the hospital was also upheld, subject to a stay until the underlying proceedings are finally determined. The Court of Appeal provisionally awarded the hospital its costs of the appeal on the same basis.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review