The High Court refused a request by Betty Ryan for leave to require the Health Service Executive (HSE) and South Tipperary General Hospital to answer a question about whether she had contracted with them for the provision of a medical device. The court held that the proposed interrogatory raised a legal issue and did not qualify as a factual question under the rules governing interrogatories.
The application arose from a personal injury action issued in 2020. Ryan alleges that she underwent procedures involving pelvic mesh devices in 2010 and 2012, and that she did not learn a second device had been inserted during the 2012 procedure until she reviewed her medical records in September 2018. She alleges that treatment, the devices or subsequent care caused injury and discomfort. Those claims have not been determined in this application.
Ryan’s case includes a contractual claim under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. She says she was treated as a private patient in a public hospital and paid for services, but it is unclear which of the defendants contracted with her in relation to the device. Her motion sought leave to ask the HSE whether a contract had been entered into between it and Ryan for provision of the device. An identical motion concerned the hospital; the judge said his ruling applied to both.
The HSE and hospital opposed the applications, arguing that the question depended on legal issues concerning the defendants’ respective positions and the alleged contractual supply arrangements. The court considered the rules permitting interrogatories only where they address relevant facts and are necessary for fair disposal of a case or to save costs. It distinguished factual questions—such as confirming a date or event—from questions requiring legal analysis or interpretation.
Justice Conleth Bradley concluded that the proposed question, including a version with its introductory wording removed, could not be recast as a clear factual interrogatory. The court did not decide whether Ryan’s contractual claim is legally valid or who, if anyone, contracted to provide the device. It refused leave to deliver the interrogatory in the motion dated 15 May 2023.
The matter was listed before the judge on 18 April 2024 to address costs and ancillary matters. The judgment did not determine those matters.