The High Court has set aside an order renewing a woman’s personal injury summons against the Health Service Executive, ruling that the summons had already been renewed once and could not be renewed again under the applicable rules.
Mr Justice Barr delivered judgment on 30 October 2020 in an application by the HSE to set aside an order made by Mr Justice MacGrath on 15 July 2019. That order had renewed the summons for three months. The application was heard afresh, rather than as an appeal from the earlier order.
The underlying claim concerns a caesarean section at St Luke’s Hospital, Kilkenny, in August 2013. The plaintiff alleges that she later suffered kidney problems and says the surgeon told her in December 2014 that the damage “ought not to have occurred”. Those matters are part of the claim’s history; the 2020 application concerned renewal of the summons, not a determination of the alleged negligence.
The summons was issued in November 2015. The Master of the High Court renewed it in November 2016 for six months, until 22 May 2017. The plaintiff’s solicitor said he mistakenly believed the renewal lasted 12 months. After receiving a report from Professor Lees, he attempted to serve the summons in November 2017. The plaintiff later obtained a further report from Dr Clements, received in December 2018, and the summons was formally served on 26 July 2019, after the order by MacGrath J.
The HSE argued that the 2019 order was outside the court’s jurisdiction because the 2016 order was already the one renewal permitted by the rules introduced in January 2019. It also argued that special circumstances had not been shown, pointing to delays in obtaining expert reports and serving the summons, and the disadvantage of defending a claim years after the events.
The plaintiff argued that it was appropriate to wait for a suitably supportive expert report before formally serving a medical negligence claim. Her counsel also said the HSE had earlier received a copy of the summons and had access to medical records, limiting prejudice from the delay.
Mr Justice Barr held that the amended rules allowed only one renewal, whether granted by the Master or the court. Because the Master had renewed this summons in 2016, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to renew it again in 2019. The judge therefore set aside the 2019 renewal order.
The judge added that, even if the court had jurisdiction, the plaintiff had not established special circumstances. He found that the delay in obtaining the later report and making the renewal application had not been shown to involve reasonable expedition. He also considered the competing hardship: the claim might be barred if the summons remained unrenewed, while the HSE would face difficulty defending a stale claim, including evidence about the alleged 2014 statement. The judgment decided the renewal application; it did not decide the negligence claim itself.