The Court of Appeal has ordered the hospital to discover statements gathered during an inquiry into the death of a baby, after finding that the hospital had not provided evidence to support its claim that the statements were confidential.
The appeal was brought by Cliona O’Keeffe and Alan Doran, whose daughter Fiadh died at the hospital on 12 January 2019, the day after she was born. Their personal injuries action alleges negligence in the management of labour and delivery. The hospital admitted the mother’s admission, the birth and the death, but denied negligence and put the parents to proof on their allegations.
The parents sought three categories of documents. They reached agreement with the hospital on medical records and relevant protocols, leaving in dispute statements made to the hospital’s inquiry. The hospital opposed disclosure, arguing that the family already had the inquiry report and draft inquest depositions, that the statements were hearsay, and that confidentiality was needed to secure staff cooperation with the inquiry.
The High Court refused discovery of the statements. On appeal, Mr Justice Allen said there was no evidence about the inquiry’s purpose, terms of reference, process or whether participants had been promised confidentiality. The hospital had relied on submissions and an HSE framework document, but the framework did not establish how this inquiry was conducted or what assurances had been given.
The Court of Appeal held that the statements were relevant to the liability issues. That relevance created a presumption that discovery was necessary, which the hospital had not rebutted with evidence establishing the fact and extent of confidentiality. The court allowed the appeal and ordered discovery of the contested documents. It declined to remit the motion to the High Court to let the hospital supply evidence later.
Mr Justice Noonan agreed and added observations about open disclosure and the public interest. He said those comments were obiter: the court did not need to decide whether confidentiality, if established, could justify withholding the statements. Justices Faherty and Allen also agreed with allowing the appeal. The order concerns discovery only; the judgment does not decide the negligence claim.