The High Court has refused an application by Julian Dockery to set aside an order renewing a personal injuries summons brought by Andrew Mangan. The court found there was good reason to renew the summons and rejected the defendant’s motion. It did not determine whether the alleged negligence occurred.
The summons, issued on 17 June 2008, alleges that Mangan suffered severe injuries after respiratory distress in the period following his birth on 11 January 1995. It alleges that the injuries resulted from negligence or breach of duty by Dockery, who is described in the summons as the consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist to Mangan’s mother during her pregnancy. Mangan is described as a person of unsound mind, not so found, and sues through his mother and next friend, Lorraine Mangan. These are pleaded claims, not findings on liability.
No attempt was made to serve the summons. In July 2013, the High Court allowed it to be renewed on an application made without notice to Dockery. Dockery then applied, under Order 8, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, to have that renewal order set aside.
The court considered the plaintiff’s solicitors’ account of the delay in obtaining medical evidence. The case had initially been prepared with an obstetric opinion, but senior counsel later advised that a paediatric neurologist’s evidence on liability was required. The judgment records efforts to find an expert and states that reports from Dr Blathnaid McCoy, including one addressing timing and causation, reached the solicitors on 1 June 2013. Senior counsel subsequently advised that the outstanding issues had been addressed and the claim should proceed.
Applying the approach in earlier cases, the court first considered whether there was good reason, or potentially good reason, to renew the summons. It distinguished this case from *Bingham v Crowley*, where the court had rejected reliance on the need for further expert opinion in different circumstances. Here, Justice Costello concluded the plaintiff’s legal team had not considered it appropriate to continue without the paediatric neurological evidence.
The court then weighed the parties’ hardship. The alleged events were nearly 20 years old, but the defendant had not advanced a case of prejudice at this stage. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s claim was not statute-barred because of his stated legal status, and that the plaintiff’s solicitor said a fresh summons would be issued if the renewal were set aside. The defendant’s lawyers indicated they intended to seek dismissal for inordinate and inexcusable delay whether the existing or fresh proceedings continued.
Justice Costello found that setting aside the renewal could cause grave hardship to the plaintiff and refused the relief sought. The ruling leaves the negligence allegations unresolved and does not decide any later application to dismiss the proceedings.