The High Court has refused the Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital’s application to have a limitation issue heard separately, before the trial of Lorraine Kielthy’s personal injury claim.
In a judgment delivered on 19 March 2024, Ms Justice Denise Brett dismissed the hospital’s amended motion. She said the evidence needed to determine when Ms Kielthy knew the relevant facts, and whether concealment affected that issue, made the limitation question unsuitable for a preliminary hearing.
The proceedings arise from an injury Ms Kielthy says she sustained during the birth of her third child on 19 March 1995. Her personal injuries summons was issued on 7 June 2022. The hospital pleaded that the claim was outside the relevant limitation period. Ms Kielthy denies that and says she began proceedings within two years of acquiring the required knowledge, which she places on 30 May 2022 after receiving expert opinion.
Her reply also alleges that the hospital concealed the nature and circumstances of the injury, including by describing a 3b tear as “a small tear” and attributing faecal incontinence symptoms after discharge to an infection. Those are allegations in the pleadings, not findings in this judgment. The hospital’s motion also raised delay, but its counsel confirmed that this ground was not being pursued in the motion, although it remained in the defence for trial.
The hospital initially sought a preliminary determination on the limitation defence on the basis that material facts could be agreed. It later amended its request to seek a separate hearing based on oral evidence. It argued that a successful limitation defence could dispose of the whole action and save time and costs. Ms Kielthy opposed the request, saying the facts were disputed, the evidence would overlap with liability, and her two expert witnesses as well as she herself would be needed.
Justice Brett said the date-of-knowledge issue was entangled with the concealment allegations and the pleaded reliance on section 71 of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. She also found that the hospital had not sufficiently set out the potential dates on which it claimed Ms Kielthy had constructive knowledge. The court was not satisfied that a separate hearing would save time and costs.
The ruling concerns only whether to hold a preliminary trial. It does not decide whether the claim is time-barred, whether concealment occurred, or the merits of the injury claim. Justice Brett said a trial judge could later decide, when fuller details are available, to determine the limitation issues separately. The substantive trial had been specially fixed for October 2024 for two weeks.
The judge said the usual rule that costs follow the event would point to an order against the hospital in favour of Ms Kielthy. She gave the hospital leave to make a written submission on costs within 14 days, with a further 14 days for the plaintiff to respond.