The Supreme Court has ruled that a personal injury claim brought on behalf of Bridget Doyle’s estate could not proceed after her death, and that a separate claim concerning care provided by her son had not been properly constituted.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice O’Malley on 17 November 2016, determined a preliminary issue about whether either claim survived. It did not decide the underlying allegation of medical negligence.
Ms Doyle underwent cataract surgery on her left eye in January 2010. Post-operative complications led to removal of the eye in February, followed by further interventions. Her claim alleged that she had not given informed consent to the surgery or general anaesthetic. It did not allege that the operation itself had been performed negligently. The High Court dismissed the claim in 2013, finding that the disclosure requirements for elective surgery had been met.
Ms Doyle died in July 2014 while her appeal was pending. Her son, Edward Doyle, as personal representative of her estate, argued that the claim for general damages survived under a common-law exception because the High Court had already given judgment. Alternatively, he argued that damages for care he provided to his mother were pecuniary loss and could survive her death.
The Court rejected the argument that a common-law exception preserved the claim for general damages. It held that section 7 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 governs the survival of causes of action, and excludes damages for pain, suffering and personal injury from claims pursued for an estate. The Court said the cited authority concerned a successful plaintiff whose damages had become an enforceable judgment debt. Ms Doyle had no award in her favour, and an appeal was not a new hearing.
The Court also rejected the estate’s argument that judicial delay had caused the claim to be lost. It noted that the appeal was given priority and concluded that the court system was not responsible for the matter not being finalised before Ms Doyle’s death.
On the care claim, the Court accepted that a claim for care provided by a family member could survive a plaintiff’s death if properly raised. But it found that the defendant and the High Court had not been notified that such damages were being sought. The letter describing the care Ms Doyle received was insufficient, and the evidence did not quantify how her son’s care had increased after the operation. The Court determined the preliminary issue in favour of the defendant.