The High Court has ordered Medtronic Ireland Limited, Medtronic Public Limited Company and Medtronic Vascular Galway to reinstate part of their Galway factory so a worker’s engineer can carry out a fresh inspection and take photographs for a personal injury case.
Mr Justice Barr made the order on 30 June 2017, allowing an appeal from the Master of the High Court, who had refused the worker’s application. The order concerns preparation of the case; the judgment does not decide whether the worker suffered an injury or whether the defendants were liable.
Antonio Matute alleges that repetitive arm and hand movements required in his work caused a repetitive strain injury to his neck, shoulders and upper arms. His personal injury summons, issued on 14 March 2016, alleges an unsafe system of work at the defendants’ premises in Parkmore Business Park West, Galway.
At a joint engineering inspection on 10 June 2016, the worker’s engineer, Michael Byrne, was not allowed to take photographs. The court heard that the company’s policy restricted photography to Medtronic employees. Byrne was offered photographs taken by a company employee, Eadaoin Guilfoyle, but he later said the first images were in an unsuitable format and that a subsequent set had not been taken during the inspection. The defendants later supplied 61 photographs said to have been taken at the inspection.
Byrne’s affidavit said the images did not provide the detail or sequence he needed to prepare an engineering report. He said he could not review images as they were taken and that the delay, which approached a year, left him unable to give a satisfactory report. Guilfoyle said she had retaken photographs after employees complained that their faces were identifiable, and later supplied the original inspection images with faces obscured.
The court accepted Byrne’s criticisms, noting there was no evidence contradicting them. Mr Justice Barr found that the worker had been significantly prejudiced in preparing his case because his engineer had been prevented from taking photographs. He said the defendants’ confidentiality concerns could not justify applying the photography restriction inflexibly during the inspection.
The factory workstation had been altered after the inspection. The defendants estimated in argument that reinstating it would cost about €60,000, but the court noted that no evidence supported that estimate.
The court extended time for the appeal and ordered the defendants to restore the relevant factory area to its condition at the June 2016 inspection. Matute’s engineer may then inspect it with Matute and his solicitor and take photographs he considers necessary. To protect commercial confidentiality, selected photographs must first be sent to the defendants’ solicitor, who may propose modifications. If the parties cannot agree, either may return to court on 24 hours’ notice. The engineer must undertake to destroy photographs not used in his report.