The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in a personal injury action after the plaintiff died while the appeal was part heard, ruling that no remedy remained for the Court to consider. It left the costs of the High Court proceedings and the appeal to be addressed at a later hearing.
Bridget Doyle had sued Daniel Dunne, described in the proceedings as the agreed nominated defendant of the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital. Her claim arose from cataract surgery at the hospital in January 2010. She alleged that she had not given informed consent to the surgery or general anaesthetic, and claimed negligence, breach of duty and trespass to the person. These were allegations, not findings.
The High Court dismissed her claim in December 2013, finding that the minimum disclosure requirements for elective surgery had been met and that no negligence had been established. Doyle appealed, seeking either a new trial or judgment in her favour with damages assessed.
The appeal hearing began in June 2014 but was adjourned before the appellant’s counsel could reply. Doyle died on 11 July 2014, from a cause unrelated to the injuries alleged in the case. Her son, Edward Doyle, asked to continue the appeal as executor, but the Supreme Court made no order changing the title of the proceedings because the will had not been admitted to probate and he was not then a personal representative. The Court heard the remaining appeal on a provisional, de bene esse basis.
The Court explained that section 7(1) of the Civil Liability Act 1961 allowed Doyle’s cause of action to survive for the benefit of her estate. But section 7(2) barred recovery by the estate for pain, suffering or personal injury. The Court said the claim, as pleaded and pursued, consisted entirely of unliquidated general damages for those losses. No special damages had been claimed, and there was no other remedy or relief for the Court to consider.
The Court rejected the argument that the claim had merged into the High Court judgment. It concluded that the statutory bar left nothing to adjudicate or remit, and dismissed the appeal. It did not decide the underlying allegations of negligence or lack of consent on appeal. The question of costs was not adequately addressed at the resumed hearing, so the matter will be re-listed for that issue.