The Court of Appeal has dismissed both sides’ appeals in a medical negligence case, leaving in place a High Court award of €260,111.25 to a woman whose ureter was negligently sutured during surgery in 2010.
The court’s judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 24 September 2020, concerned the amount of compensation and the costs order after liability had been admitted. The patient appealed the damages assessment and costs ruling. The respondents cross-appealed the refusal to dismiss her claim under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, arguing that she had given materially false or misleading evidence.
The High Court had awarded €140,000 for pain and suffering to the date of trial and €45,000 for future pain and suffering. It also awarded €20,000 for past loss of opportunity in the job market, €30,000 for future competitive disadvantage, and sums for medical travel, subsistence and future GP visits. The patient had undergone further surgery after the 2010 procedure and had her left kidney removed in 2013. The trial judge accepted that she continued to experience urinary frequency and urgency, alongside psychological symptoms.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb the damages assessment. It said the trial judge was entitled to consider evidence about the patient’s clothing business, Sparkle Closet, and her recovery over time. The judge had found that the online business closed for commercial reasons and that by 2015 she had made a reasonably good physical recovery, while still having urinary symptoms. The appeal court rejected the patient’s argument that the future loss-of-opportunity award should be higher.
The respondents’ cross-appeal focused particularly on pre-trial statements claiming annual earnings of about €25,000 to €26,000 and past and future earnings losses based on that figure. Those claims were later not pursued in their pleaded, calculated form at trial. The appeal court said the trial judge had been entitled to conclude that the respondents had not proved the patient knowingly gave materially false or misleading evidence. It therefore upheld the refusal to dismiss the case under section 26.
The court also upheld the High Court’s costs ruling. The patient had not recovered more than the respondents’ €280,000 lodgment, later increased to €450,000. The appeal court rejected her arguments that the lodgment had been displaced by later offers, that recoverable benefits should reduce its value, or that she had succeeded on separate issues entitling her to costs. It affirmed the High Court order and gave a provisional view that the respondents should receive the costs of the appeal and the patient the costs of the cross-appeal, set off against each other. The parties were allowed 14 days to make written submissions on any alternative costs order.