The Supreme Court has allowed Andrew Mangan’s appeal against the dismissal of his claims against a consultant paediatrician and the body that operated Mount Carmel Hospital, ruling that the proceedings should continue to a hearing on their merits.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice William McKechnie on 4 November 2020, concerned claims arising from injuries Mangan suffered around his premature birth in January 1995. He was born at Mount Carmel Hospital at just over 30 weeks’ gestation and later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, cortical blindness and quadriplegia. He sued through his mother and next friend, Lorraine Mangan.
The claims against paediatrician Dr Brian Denham and the hospital operator were struck out by the High Court in 2018 because the pleadings were found not to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision in 2019. The Supreme Court considered whether the pleadings could proceed despite Mangan relying on allegations based on expert advice obtained by the original defendant, obstetrician Dr Julian Dockeray, rather than on an expert report of his own.
The Court held that an application under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts had to be decided from the pleadings, assuming their factual allegations could be proved. It said the pleaded allegations—that ventilation and neonatal management were unsuitable, Mount Carmel lacked appropriate specialist expertise and monitoring, and Mangan should have been transferred—disclosed a cause of action. The Court did not decide whether those allegations were true or whether any defendant was negligent.
The Court also rejected dismissal under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. It was not satisfied the claims were bound to fail, noting that evidence underlying Dockeray’s position might become available through procedural steps or at trial. It further held that ending the claims against Denham and the hospital at this stage could leave Mangan without a remedy if responsibility were attributed to them while Dockeray successfully defended his own case.
On delay, the Court concluded that the history did not justify ending the proceedings without a trial. It found no specific prejudice established by Denham and considered the hospital’s evidence about insurance and assets inadequate. The judgment noted that medical records were available and that Denham had indemnity cover. It directed that the case and disputes between defendants be progressed with due diligence. The ruling addressed whether the claims could continue; it did not determine liability or damages.