The High Court dismissed GG’s claims against AE, the personal representative of the estate of a deceased doctor, finding that they were statute-barred under section 9(2)(b) of the Civil Liability Act 1961. The ruling also applied to a related case brought by GG’s husband, OG. The court did not decide the underlying allegations of negligence.
GG alleges that cervical screening and later testing and reporting of a tissue sample were negligent. She was diagnosed with cervical cancer in October 2016 and underwent a radical hysterectomy the following month. The application before Mr Justice Cian Ferriter concerned only whether her claims against AE could proceed, given the statutory time limit for claims against a deceased person’s estate.
GG’s proceedings began in November 2018. An expert report received on 17 September 2019 identified a potential claim concerning a January 2014 histology sample reported by the late Dr I. GG’s solicitors sought information about Dr I and his estate. They wrote to the Medical Protection Society (MPS) on 24 October 2019 asking it to nominate someone to represent the estate and accept service of proceedings. A separate letter to the hospital later sought information about Dr I’s status and estate.
The parties disputed what the MPS knew and what GG’s solicitors had requested. At the hearing, GG’s counsel accepted the factual account in an affidavit from an MPS claims manager. The judge found that the MPS did not know Dr I’s date of death when it received the October letter, acted promptly to contact AE, and obtained the date only on 16 December 2019. It then provided that information to GG’s solicitors within days. The judge also found no plausible basis to test AE’s knowledge at trial or to suggest that she delayed her response to make the limitation period expire.
The statutory period expired on 16 December 2019. GG’s application to join AE was determined on 29 July 2020, and the summons was amended in August 2020. Although the judge acknowledged that GG and her solicitor had taken appropriate steps and were left in a difficult position, he found no misleading representation or unconscionable conduct that could prevent AE from relying on the statute. He said allowing the claims to proceed would effectively require the court to fill a gap in the legislation, which he was not empowered to do.
The court dismissed GG’s claims against AE and made the same decision in OG’s related case. The judge gave a provisional view that no order for costs would be appropriate, while inviting brief written submissions if the parties could not agree.