The High Court has refused an application to set aside a third-party notice issued by Beacon Hospital Sandyford Limited in medical negligence proceedings, finding that the hospital served it as soon as was reasonably possible.
Mr Justice Meenan’s judgment, delivered on 19 March 2021, concerned a claim by David Stewart Evans arising from catheterisation procedures after lung surgery at the hospital in June 2014. Evans alleged that he suffered serious injuries because of negligence and breach of duty during attempts to insert a catheter. The hospital settled his claim for €175,000, including general and special damages, after mediation in December 2019. Proceedings against the second named defendant had been discontinued.
The hospital had obtained an expert urology report in June 2017 which identified alleged negligence by the doctor later named as the third party. The court said the hospital first had to identify the relevant indemnifier, a process that was not resolved until late July 2018. The indemnifier’s solicitors, Kennedys, then sought medical records and said in December 2018 that they were obtaining expert evidence and would respond when it was received.
That report was received by Kennedys on 18 November 2019. The hospital’s solicitors had written repeatedly during 2019, the judge found, contrary to an affidavit assertion that there had been no direct contact for a period. Kennedys told the hospital on 29 November that its expert supported the doctor and that it would not attend settlement discussions. The report was provided to the hospital on 3 December.
The hospital applied to join the doctor as a third party on 13 December 2019. Justice Meenan found that it was reasonable for the hospital to seek the indemnifier’s position on liability before starting third-party proceedings. The proceedings were commenced ten days after the report was made available to the hospital, which the judge held met the statutory requirement to serve notice “as soon as is reasonably possible”.
The third party had argued that the delay caused irretrievable prejudice and that the hospital had delayed tactically to retain control of the litigation until settlement. The judge found that no prejudice had been identified and that the correspondence did not support the tactical-delay allegation. He also noted that proving prejudice was not required to rely on the statutory timing requirement.
The application to set aside the third-party notice was refused. As the judgment was delivered electronically, the parties were given 14 days to make submissions on costs. The judgment did not determine those costs.