The Supreme Court has allowed a prisoner to expand his personal injury claim over an accident involving a steel-cutting machine at Wheatfield Prison.
Felix Moorehouse claims his left hand became caught in the blade of a guillotine steel cutter while he was working in the prison, causing serious amputation injuries to his fingers.
His original personal injuries summons, served in June 2010, alleged failures including an unsafe system of work, inadequate supervision and training, missing machine guards and defective equipment. The defendants denied negligence and alleged that Moorehouse himself had removed guarding and operated the machine improperly.
After new solicitors took over his case in November 2013, Moorehouse sought to add further particulars. The High Court allowed some amendments but refused allegations that prison authorities had permitted him to use the machine when they knew, or should have known, that he was under the influence of methadone.
The central legal issue on appeal was whether the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and the personal injury rules introduced in 2005 had restricted the courts' existing power to allow pleadings to be amended.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin held that they had not. The legislation introduced stricter requirements for detailed and verified personal injury pleadings, but neither the Act nor the newer rules displaced Order 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which permits amendments where necessary to determine the real questions in dispute.
The court also found a close connection between an amendment the High Court had allowed — concerning Moorehouse's alleged inability to read warning signs — and the methadone allegation. Both concerned his capacity or fitness to operate the machinery.
Importantly, the defendants identified no actual prejudice that would result from allowing the amendment. The Supreme Court held that the methadone particulars clarified the existing unsafe-system-of-work claim rather than introducing an entirely new cause of action.
The appeal was therefore allowed. The ruling concerned amendment of the pleadings only and did not decide whether Moorehouse's injury allegations were ultimately proved.