The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the striking out of claims against a retired paediatrician and the Congregation of the Sisters of the Little Company of Mary, which operated Mount Carmel Hospital. The court upheld the High Court’s decision that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action against those respondents and that the claims were bound to fail.
Andrew Mangan, suing through his mother and next friend, Lorraine Mangan, brought proceedings over alleged failures in the management of his mother’s pregnancy and his antenatal care and delivery at Mount Carmel Hospital in 1995. He was born prematurely by caesarean section and has cerebral palsy and cortical blindness. The claims against the first defendant, an obstetrician and gynaecologist, were not the subject of this appeal.
The hospital respondents were joined as co-defendants in November 2016, after the first defendant sought to bring them into the case as third parties. The first defendant’s solicitor described expert advice alleging deficiencies in the hospital’s neonatal care and facilities. Mangan’s amended summons acknowledged that he had no expert medical evidence supporting allegations of actionable and causal negligence against the respondents. It said further particulars would depend on information obtained through discovery.
The appeal court said the discovery process could not be used to find out whether a claimant had a valid cause of action. It accepted that a written expert report need not always exist before professional negligence proceedings are brought, but said there must be a credible basis for the claim. Here, Mangan had no expert opinion alleging negligence by either respondent. His neonatology expert considered the care satisfactory and did not connect the respondents’ actions or omissions to Mangan’s injuries; his obstetrics expert made no criticism of them.
The court also declined to give Mangan more time to seek supporting expert evidence. It cited the long timeline of the proceedings and the prejudice to the respondents, including that the religious order had sold its interest in the hospital in 2006 and the hospital later closed. The court concluded that this prejudice outweighed the potential benefit of an extension.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal said the High Court judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles. Other grounds raised in the respondents’ original motions had not been decided by the High Court, and the appeal had proceeded on the basis that those issues would remain open if the matter were remitted. The appeal court did not remit the case.