The High Court has refused consent for an appeal concerning a ward of court’s settlement to continue, finding that pursuing it would not be lawful or in his best interests. The court also said no further steps should be taken in the appeal or any other proceedings on his behalf.
The ruling by Ms Justice Irvine, President of the High Court, was delivered on 8 June 2021 after the Supreme Court remitted questions about whether the ward’s wife, A. O’B., could continue an appeal without the President’s leave, and whether further proceedings should be brought. The appeal concerns a 2012 order refusing A. O’B.’s application to set aside a settlement approved in 2011.
The original proceedings began in 1998. The claim for M. O’B. alleged that negligence in his treatment for viral encephalitis in 1996 caused severe brain damage. The judgment says he requires round-the-clock care and cannot live independently.
The defendants initially offered €4.2 million to settle all claims, with an indemnity against any HSE claim for past care costs. The judgment records a dispute over the terms of a later €4.5 million offer: M. O’B.’s senior counsel understood it to be unconditional, while the defendants said €300,000 of it depended on the HSE pursuing past-care costs. After the HSE confirmed it would not seek those costs, a High Court judge approved a €4.5 million settlement, then set that order aside on the defendants’ application. A €4.2 million settlement was approved on 14 July 2011.
A. O’B. later sought to undo that settlement, saying she had been bullied into accepting it and arguing that the earlier €4.5 million order remained binding. The High Court rejected the basis for continuing the appeal. Justice Irvine said there had been no court order authorising A. O’B. to pursue the application or appeal on M. O’B.’s behalf, and she could not represent him in legal proceedings. The judge considered the appeal’s prospects “very slim indeed” and said the court could approve a variation of a settlement for a person who lacked capacity.
The court estimated that an unsuccessful appeal could generate costs of about €80,000, potentially payable from funds needed for M. O’B.’s future care. The respondents had said they would not pursue costs for proceedings since July 2011 if the appeal were withdrawn. The judge concluded that she could not authorise the appeal to continue and that no further proceedings should be taken. The ruling answered the questions remitted by the Supreme Court; it did not itself decide the appeal’s underlying settlement dispute.