The Court of Appeal has refused Allergan Limited’s application to stay a High Court order requiring it to deliver a defence within six weeks in a case brought by Denise Mulhall over ruptured breast implants.
Mr Justice Noonan delivered the decision ex tempore on 16 May 2025. The stay application was pending Allergan’s appeal of the High Court order made on 1 April 2025. That order said judgment would be entered against Allergan in default if it did not deliver its defence within six weeks. The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay application; it did not decide the underlying appeal or the merits of Ms Mulhall’s claim.
Ms Mulhall’s proceedings concern implants manufactured by Allergan. She underwent breast augmentation in February 2010. She pleads that an implant ruptured in 2014, causing pain and swelling, and says another implant ruptured in 2017 after replacement implants had been fitted. The judgment recounts that the implants were removed and replaced, and that Allergan later confirmed it had retained three of the four implants and had no knowledge of the fourth.
Allergan argued that Ms Mulhall’s pleadings did not identify the alleged defect, leaving it unable to prepare a meaningful defence. It said a defence might need amendment after expert evidence or inspection, with additional costs and possible discovery disputes. Ms Mulhall’s solicitor argued that the early implant failure supported the defective-product claim and that Allergan had repeatedly delayed delivering a defence despite earlier requests and discovery.
Justice Noonan described the dispute about the sequence of pleadings as primarily a case-management issue for the High Court. He said appeals from such interlocutory decisions face a high threshold, and considered Allergan’s appeal weak and “barely arguable”. He noted that Ms Mulhall had sought a defence in earlier Circuit Court proceedings from 2017, and that Allergan had previously relied on needing discovery before delivering one. The judge also observed that Allergan had not brought a motion to compel further particulars before seeking dismissal of the claim.
The judge said a stay could delay the High Court case by at least eight months and cause significant prejudice to Ms Mulhall. He found no particularly significant prejudice to Allergan from having to file a defence, despite possible extra costs or later amendment. The stay application was therefore dismissed. The ruling leaves the High Court order in place; the judgment does not state whether Allergan subsequently delivered its defence.